Youtube comments of Genocide the Fash (@endloesung_der_braunen_frage).
-
488
-
385
-
85
-
69
-
50
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
31
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@demef758 No you cannot assume it because it does not follow, it is a nonsequitor.
I love the logic.
The criticism of the inhumane crimes against humanity perpetrated by Fascism and National socialism (of which the later is intrinsically far worse, which does not make the former any better) must stem from a "Marxist bias" because there is no other way how one could possibily object to these horrendous moral and legal transgressions, Am I right? Like can you imagine?
This demonstrated that YOUR question stems from a very specific source of bias.
Also Marxism is completly disconnected from the topic at hand and only serves to usher in your Whataboutism for the sake of moving away the discussion from the original point (and eventually as a pathetic illogical attempt to justify the attrocities of the Fascists and National Socialists, but I will extend to you the curtesy of the benefit of the doubt)
But to answer your question:
No i do not believe that the attrocites of the Marxist Socialists (100 million if you are to believe the Black book of communism) which do not differ greatly from the deaths of Nationalism (90 million, 20 million in WW1, 70 Million in WW2) are fine by me.
So in the end you managed to create the Whataboutism-/Hypocracy- Fallacy combined with an implicity false dichotomy and all that in one simple sentence, impressive.
But allow me to throw it back at you:
May I assume that the attrocities of autoratic Nationalism are fine by you, since they are slightly overshadowed by those of communism?
EDIT (date 7.6.2021):
Also, dear Demef, is very telling how automatically assume that the critism leveled at autocratic Nationalism, fascism and National Socialism must not inly stem from a Marxist bias but also from an endorsement of said ideologies.
You know who says that?
That's right! Actual fascists/or people with fascist sympathies...
Demef, your extreme stance on communism, which I very much agree with, is fine ,yet the fact that you do not seem to extend that logic to fascism or even Nazism (if you do forgive me) might stem from a pro fascist bias.
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
To conclude this comment, lets cite an actual National Socialist and his stance to freedom of speech.
"When our opponents say: Yes, we used to grant you the [...] freedom of opinion - - yes, you us, that is no reason that we ought do the same to you! [...] That you gave this to us - that is proof of how stupid you are!"
- Josef Goebbels (December 4, 1935)
And while he was the Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich, notorious for lying to the public in that instance he was absolutly right!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bradhuskers Stop liking your own comments. Also you are actually incorrect, let me educate your ignorant soul:
Facism is Socialism rooted in Nationality, and thus should actually be the one having the name "National Socialism". Facism at it's core is national totalitarianism as the State within the fascist conception stands at the pinnacle of societal hierachy within the Nation.The Fascist sees the State as God, the organic essence of Life. It is nationalistic infact ultranationalistic and palingentic because it is a rejection of Marxist INTERNATIONAL Socialism but Fascism does not stand in opposition to Socialism in and of itself. Fascism rejects the cosmopolitan elements of Marxism not its Socialist root and origin, Socialism is a Spectrum after all and Marxism is just one variant. The definition of the Nation within fascism is rooted in spiritual ideas not exactly in Race, which was also conceptiolized as spiritual. Fascism is NOT inherently racist, but it CAN be in its various ways of expression. It is completly possible to have an anti-racist/non-racist Fascist but its impossible to have a non racist Nazi.
The reason for this is because National Socialim (which should be refered to as Fascism) is inherently RACIAL. Nazism/ Hitlerism is racist and it must be in order to set itself apart from Marxsim. Nazism is RACIAL SOCIALISM, Socialism for the "Aryan Race" to be precise. The socialization or nationalization (the Socialism) of the Race requires the RACIAL REMOVAL/EXTERMINATION of the the Jews and other enemy collectivs which pose a threat to the RACIAL/BLOOD PURITY of the socialized Race. Hitlers Socialism is his racism, is his antisemitism. By denying the commonality of Socialism between Marxism, Facsim and Nazism you are denying the ideological grounding on which the Holocaust took place, You are engaging in Denialism and historical Distortion of truth.
Again what seperates Marxist Socialism from National Socialism is RACE. Do not take it from me but the man himself:
"The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its WELTANSCHAUUNG.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a WELTANSCHAUUNG. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." (Hitler, Mein Kampf)
See how clueless you are?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@googane7755 Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@GitSumGaming Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
4
-
4
-
@MrMeinchannel Wenn man sich auf einer von radikaler bzw. extremistischer rechten Gesinnung geprägter Demonstration aufhält und sich lauthals daran beteiligt, kann man weder von einem Versehen noch von einer linken politischen Grundhaltung ausgehen bzw. kann man eine rechte politische fundamentale Haltung erschließen. Der Grad ist natürlich erst einmal die relevante Unbekannte. Ich gebe Ihnen daher dies bezüglich recht, jedoch scheint mir als würden sie meine vorherigen Kommentar zum Strohmann machen.
Ich habe niemals behauptet, dass die Präsens auf einer Rechtextremen bzw. Linksextremen Demostration, die Annahme rechtfertigt, dass das besagte Individuum zu militanten Handeln tendiert, lediglich dass eine gewisse politische Handlung vorliegt.
Die Meinungsfreiheit untersteht generellen Grenzen bzw. sollte dies der Fall sein. Ansonsten ist es lediglich eine äußerst konfuse Gradwanderung von grenzwärtiger Meinung bis hin zur irrsinnigen, abstrakten, polemischen demagogischen Volksverhetzung, welche in meine Augen zurecht stigmatisiert werden sollte und zudem als gesetzeswidrig klassifiziert wird. Klare Grenzen müssen gesetz werden, oder wollen sie wie die USA enden?
Zum uneigeschänkten Meinungsliberalismus ein kategorisches NEIN.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Zabe Hameed bablabla
Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lightofheaven134 Thats it! I have to respond!!!
You seem to missunderstand what Atheïsm means. It just means a Lack of belief in God, no more no less. An Atheist never pretends that 0=1. This is false!!! And a Bit mistake thiest are doing as you did. The Theist believs a. The Atheist just doesn't believe a. That doesn't mean the Atheist can't ne convinced by b.
0=1 is Nonsens, I think we Can agree on that. But when was it fact that the Atheist pretends that dumb shit. A Lack of belief in God no more no less, for fuck sake!!!!
In fact we have never Seen something coming out of nothing. Take a House for example. The components for the House were already there they just needed to be put together. The House is There it just needs to be build. And you know that the universe came out of nothing? When was it a fact that the universe is everything? Can you proove this? Can you proove that everything outside the universe is nothing? Scientist are saying, like Steven Hawkings that nothing was before the universe, well you don't need to believe him because this is just an assertion that needs to proven, you need to proove because you are pretending it(burden of truth). When was it a fact that God created the universe, when? It's just an assertion that needs to be proven. Like i am pretending that the holy red Elephant created the universe. There are Millions, no billions of possible causes of the universe, that are as true as the assertion:God created the universe. In fact i Can pretend what I want about the cause of the universe, as long as it is Not paradoxical. God is just one of billions of causes for the universe. The Theist just uses one of them. Atheist just doesn't believe youre theory thats it.
Have a good day...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MrMeinchannel Mir scheint als würden wir aneinander vorbei kommunizieren.
Mir geht weder um Höcke noch um andere Politiker mit politisch moderaten Meinungen. In einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft sollten diese Werte auch geäußert werden dürfen, jedoch spreche ich von radikalen und extremistischen Haltungen, die man nicht relativieren bzw. als akzeptabel ansehen sollte, irrelvant ob es dem rechetn oder linken Flügel entspringt.
Darauf bezog sich mein Kommentar über den uneigeschränkten Meinungsliberalismus. Zudem gebe ich ihnen recht, das Recht sollte niemals dazu dienen gewisse Personen gruppen zu kompromitieren und zu diffarmieren, was, wenn mich nicht alles täuscht, Verfassungswidrig wäre.
Rechtsextreme verfolgen, aber Linksextreme in Frieden lassen, ist bestenfalls kognitive Dissonanz, schlimmstenfalls politische doppelmoral und Mangel an Ungeteiltheit, da haben Sie auch recht.
Nun, abgesehen davon fungiert die Heute show ersteinmal als poelemische und humoristische deutsche Sendung, die sich im Rahmen der Ausdrucksfreiheit, über jeden lustig macht und machen darf. Die Afd sind keineswegs die einzigen, die denen "zum Opfer fällt".
Vielleicht hat das politische Klima die Ungeteiltheit der Heute Show entscheidend pervertiert, vielliecht war nie eine politische Ungeteiltheit vorhanden (ich seh es mir nicht oft an...) wie dem auch sei Sie sollten dies respektieren, auch wenn ihrer entnehmen kann, dass es ihne missfällt.
In wie fern der Inhalt dieser Show als redlich kategorisiert werden kann, ist was anderes...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bradhuskers Ok I will teach in a non derogatory way where you are right and were you are wrong and expect the same level of respect from tze likes of you if truth lies within your interests.
Were your are correct:
Fascism, Nazism and Marxism are all expressions of Socialism, because they are expressions of totalitarianism and as you surely aware of totalitarianism is essentially the "state control of society" or as Mussolini put: "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." That includes also the economy, making the concept of totalitarianism inherently socialist, there I fully agree with you and this correct.
Essentially Socialism can also be referred to as the democratic control of the economy as a consequence totalitarianism can be referred to as the "democratic control of society" because within the mind of totalitarianism:"the people IS the state and the state IS the people"
Were you are wrong:
You are wrong when you equate Fascism, Nazism and Marxism to one another simply because they are totalitarian in practice as that reduces the political spectrum to one perpective and metric through which lenses i can be observed: the statist axis.
You are reducing those ideologies or in other words by restricting observation to the role of the state within the ideoloy are creating a false equivalence between all libertarian and all totalitarian ideologies.
What you are missing is multiple perpectives, like economics or the culture, especially when talking about culture you will see just how right wing Fascism and Nazism is.
I am not claiming that Fascism or Nazism are inherently right or left, I claimed that they are a mixture of extremes from bothe the right AND left(again if regard cultur in you analysis as well).
That is why I tell you that Stalin was not a Fascist because he Socialisn is rooted in class not Nationality, same applies to every Marxist leader you continiously name.
Just because Fascism, Nazism and Marxism are socialist doen't mean they are the same, to claim that is fallacious a non-sequitor.
Here again my explanation of what Fascism actually entails:
Facism is Socialism rooted in Nationality, and thus should actually be the one having the name "National Socialism". Facism at it's core is national totalitarianism as the State within the fascist conception stands at the pinnacle of societal hierachy within the Nation.The Fascist sees the State as God, the organic essence of Life. It is nationalistic infact ultranationalistic and palingentic because it is a rejection of Marxist INTERNATIONAL Socialism but Fascism does not stand in opposition to Socialism in and of itself. Fascism rejects the cosmopolitan elements of Marxism not its Socialist root and origin, Socialism is a Spectrum after all and Marxism is just one variant. The definition of the Nation within fascism is rooted in spiritual ideas not exactly in Race, which was also conceptiolized as spiritual. Fascism is NOT inherently racist, but it CAN be in its various ways of expression. It is completly possible to have an anti-racist/non-racist Fascist but its impossible to have a non racist Nazi.
The reason for this is because National Socialim (which should be refered to as Fascism) is inherently RACIAL. Nazism/ Hitlerism is racist and it must be in order to set itself apart from Marxsim. Nazism is RACIAL SOCIALISM, Socialism for the "Aryan Race" to be precise. The socialization or nationalization (the Socialism) of the Race requires the RACIAL REMOVAL/EXTERMINATION of the the Jews and other enemy collectivs which pose a threat to the RACIAL/BLOOD PURITY of the socialized Race. Hitlers Socialism is his racism, is his antisemitism. By denying the commonality of Socialism between Marxism, Facsim and Nazism you are denying the ideological grounding on which the Holocaust took place, You are engaging in Denialism and historical Distortion of truth.
Again what seperates Marxist Socialism from National Socialism is RACE. Do not take it from me but the man himself:
"The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its WELTANSCHAUUNG.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a WELTANSCHAUUNG. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." (Hitler, Mein Kampf)
Do you understand what I mean?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MasterChief806 Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
2
-
@tylerh1648 Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mr.E Meines Erachtens nach sollte die Abtreibung nur dann ein rechtlich zulässiges Mittel sein, wenn die Schwangerschaft aus widerrechtlichen Vorgängen (Vergewaltigung) resultiert. Wenn ich meine Sichtweise erläutern darf: Das Kind sollte in aller erster Linie nicht existieren, auch wenn es genauso wenig was für seine Existenz kann wie seine Mutter. Es ist ein Kolatralschaden und zu dem ungewollt. Es auf die Welt zu bringen ist eine konstante Erinnerung an dieses schreckliche, erniedrigende und entwürdigendes Ereignis für das Individuum, dabei habe ich die Vergwaltigung noch nicht ein mal miteibezogen. Der Körperliche Schaden mag womöglich "verkraftbar" sein, jedoch ist der seelische immens oftmals irreparabel. Eine permanente Belastung, welche zu Depressionen pervertieren kann.
Dann auch noch von der Frau das Austragen des Kindes zu fordern halte ich für eine Missachtung ihrer Mneschenwürde, die "unantasbar" bleiben muss, erinnert euch das Grundgesetz.
Die Schwangerschaft an sich lasse ich mal außen vor.
Eine äquivalente Analogie wäre einen körperlich behinderten, der druch einen Unfall, den er nicht verschuldet hat, in diesen Zustand geriet, dazu zu fordern ohne Schadensersatz selbst finanziell dafür aufzukommen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dotdotdot1000 Thats not what socialism means.
1. Socialism and Communism used to mean the same thing when these terms were invented. Marx himself used those interchangebly and many other socialists Marxist or Not did the same at his time. It was only with the Bolshevik Revolution with the genesis of Leninism that those terms were Differentiated in meaning. It was Lenin who brought us that distinction, writing "The goal of Socialism is Communism" in his book "The State and Revolution."
2. Socialism has always been about the collectivization of society's means of production, before during and after Karl Marx. Thus Socialists/Communists of all Kinds at all Times have always rejected Private ownership of enterprise, Land and other such things in principle. Thats universal to socialists/communists
3. What defines Socialism is its constructivist egalitarianism, which by the way defines the left as whole. The belief that man is what he makes of himself and that just world is where man is equal with all members of his species is paramount to all leftism especially Socialism and Communism. The Proposition then that the Nazis, who are staunch anti egalitarian social Darwinists believing in the inherent inquality of the races/nations as well as the superiority and right to dominate of their own the "Aryan Race" which makes them as anti-leftists as is conceptually possible, could be left wing is francly ridiculous. Its absurd.
Socialism and Private Property are mutually exclusive
Nationalism, of the kind practiced by the Nazis, one fueled by racial puritanism and supremacism instead of national liberation as can be seen with the many anti-colonial movements in the second half of the 20th century, is absolutely contradicted by Socialism.
Nazism or any other Form ethnonationalism, which Nazism essentially was, and socialist Patriotism are not the same, not even close.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@babyjiren9676 1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ascuded You are actually incorrect. Facism is Socialism rooted in Nationality, and thus should actually be the one having the name "National Socialism". Facism at it's core is national totalitarianism as the State within the fascist conception stands at the pinnacle of societal hierachy within the Nation.The Fascist sees the State as God, the organic essence of Life. It is nationalistic infact ultranationalistic and palingentic because it is a rejection of Marxist INTERNATIONAL Socialism but Fascism does not stand in opposition to Socialism in and of itself. Fascism rejects the cosmopolitan elements of Marxism not its Socialist root and origin, Socialism is a Spectrum after all and Marxism is just one variant. The definition of the Nation within fascism is rooted in spiritual ideas not exactly in Race, which was also conceptiolized as spiritual. Fascism is NOT inherently racist, but it CAN be in its various ways of expression. It is completly possible to have an anti-racist/non-racist Fascist but its impossible to have a non racist Nazi.
The reason for this is because National Socialim (which should be refered to as Fascism) is inherently RACIAL. Nazism/ Hitlerism is racist and it must be in order to set itself apart from Marxsim. Nazism is RACIAL SOCIALISM, Socialism for the "Aryan Race" to be precise. The socialization or nationalization (the Socialism) of the Race requires the RACIAL REMOVAL/EXTERMINATION of the the Jews and other enemy collectivs which pose a threat to the RACIAL/BLOOD PURITY of the socialized Race. Hitlers Socialism is his racism, is his antisemitism. By denying the commonality of Socialism between Marxism, Facsim and Nazism you are denying the ideological grounding on which the Holocaust took place, You are engaging in Denialism and historical Distortion of truth.
Again what seperates Marxist Socialism from National Socialism is RACE. Do not take it from me but the man himself:
"The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its WELTANSCHAUUNG.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a WELTANSCHAUUNG. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." (Hitler, Mein Kampf)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@bornepayne242 That is Bad Logic AS Well. If a historical actor Acts because of an Idea, that animated him, Then the Idea is the cause for historical Action, hence IT can be reasonably blamed.
If People try and fail to achieve Communism over and over again and commit attrocities in the process over and over again Then
1. One can deduce that their Motivation stemmed from the Idea of realizing Communism
2. IT can reasonably infered that These atrocities Are inherent to the process of realizing Communism
Conclusion: Communism can be blamed, even If IT was never truly realized.
For If ideologies need to be truly and fully IMPLEMENTED, for them to Stop being exempt from responsibilty, Then by that Logic I could Claim that Nazism does Not deserve any blame, because the National Socialists did Not actually achieve their ideological Goals (ie. Livingspace for the Aryan Race, total extermination of the Jews, enslavement of the Slavs etc.) Many of whom are Essential to the Ideology. Of course Nobody in His right mind would argue that the Nazis were Not Nazis, Just because they failed to achieve what their Ideology called for, Same with commmunism
1
-
That is Bad Logic AS Well. If a historical actor Acts because of an Idea, that animated him, Then the Idea is the cause for historical Action, hence IT can be reasonably blamed.
If People try and fail to achieve Communism over and over again and commit attrocities in the process over and over again Then
1. One can deduce that their Motivation stemmed from the Idea of realizing Communism
2. IT can reasonably infered that These atrocities Are inherent to the process of realizing Communism
Conclusion: Communism can be blamed, even If IT was never truly realized.
For If ideologies need to be truly and fully IMPLEMENTED, for them to Stop being exempt from responsibilty, Then by that Logic I could Claim that Nazism does Not deserve any blame, because the National Socialists did Not actually achieve their ideological Goals (ie. Livingspace for the Aryan Race, total extermination of the Jews, enslavement of the Slavs etc.) Many of whom are Essential to the Ideology. Of course Nobody in His right mind would argue that the Nazis were Not Nazis, Just because they failed to achieve what their Ideology called for, Same with commmunism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hitlers genocidal Regime was in no shape or form incompetent in the "art of killing" in fact they are absolute masters, or does Auschwitz - Birkenau, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, Kulmhof, Buchenwald and much MUCH MORE sound like incompetence to you?
Also it is very telling that despite 6 years of war, Hitler manages to make it on the list of greatest mass murders in human history, demonstrating quite a high extermination rate. The only reason his bodycount is "relativly low" (that being third place) is that he did not have the means to implement his overtly Genocidal Dystopia.
Also the National Socialists killed far more than one anticipates. Hitler is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of over 20 million people of which at least 12 Million can be attributed to the Holocaust and indirectly caused the death of arround 50 million europeans. As a consequence he killed about the same amount if not even far more the highest estimates of Joseph Stalins Body Count only overshadowed ny Mao depending on how somebody counts.
The fact is Hitler is in Europe oncontested Massmurdere number 1.
1.My main Source is:
Democide
Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder
By
R. J. Rummel
The two other links are related to the source
2.https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM
3. https://scottmanning.com/content/nazi-body-count/
National Socialism made the extermination and enslavement of those considered racially inferior its modus operandi.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
2. https://gplanost.x-berg.de/generalplaneast.html
3.http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/GPO/gpo%20sources.htm
4.https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Also Mein Kampf underlines the Genocidal and Imperialist Ambitions of the National Socialists.
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
The international poison is obviously the J E W S.
2. Racial Imperialism
"The folkish movement must not be the champion of other
peoples, but the vanguard fighter of its own. Otherwise it is
superfluous and above all has no right to sulk about the past. For
in that case it is behaving in exactly tbe same wav. The old
German policy was wrongly determined by dynastic
considerations, and the future policy must not be directed by
cosmopolitan folkish drivel. In particular, we are not constables
guarding the wellknown 'poor little nations,' but soldiers of our
own nation.
But we National Socialists must go further. The right to possess
soil can become a duty if without extension of its soil a great
nation seems doomed to destruction. And most especially when
not some little negro nation or other is involved, but the
Germanic mother of life, which has given the presentday world
its cultural picture. Germany will either be a world power or
there will be no Germany. And for world power she needs that
magnitude which will give her the position she needs in the
present period, and life to her citizens.
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath
the foreign policy tendency of our preWar period. We take up
where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless
German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze
toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial
and commercial policy of the preWar period and shift to the soil
policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in
mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing P
ussia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that
intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its
existence as a state. For the organization of a Russian state
formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs
in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the stateforming
efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous
mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower
nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more
than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured
as long as the racial nudeus of the creative state race maintained
itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic
nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as
almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been
replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by
himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it
is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire
forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment
of decomposition. The Persian I empire in the east is ripe for
collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the
end of Russia as a state. We have been chosen by Fate as
witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest
confirmation of the soundness of the folkish theory.
Our task, the mission of the National Socialist movement, is to
bring our own people to such political insight that they will not
see their goal for the future in the breathtaking sensation of a
new Alexander's conquest, but in the industrious work of the
German plow, to which the sword need only give soil."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Certain ideas like Nazism, Fascism, Islamism, Stalinism, Christian Fundamentalism etc., are by reason of their fundamental rejection of freedom of speech out not to be allowed to spread their ideas.
We must never become victims of our own tolerance.
Freedom of speech is a political categorical imperative.
We ought to act only according to the political maxim that if universalized produces logically a non contradiction to freedom of speech.
If we were to universalise the political Maxims of lets say Nazims, that is to say raise them an general law, raise to the height of an absolute, would the society that results from it be a positove affirmation of freedom of speech?
If the answer is yes, then freedom of speech is preserved as a principle, and therefore should be granted to Nazis.
If the answer is not then freedom of speech is destroyed as apriori principle and
therefore it MUST NOT be granted to Nazis.
Supportimg Nazis freedom of speech is not an affirmation of it but actually a contradiction of of it as demonstrated by the categorical imperative.
I am not being hypocritical in slightest. I am philosophically consistent and purely logical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@froniccruxis You are making a classical mistake in your attempt to define the ideological principles of fascism, that one being that All exlusionary authorarian political constructs qualify as fascist since they apply violence to achieve their own ends. Fascism neither equates to violence against percieved dissidents or political enemies nor can Fascism be conflated with mere totalitarianism, that is historic "distortionism"/negative revisionism of truth at it's finest or if it was not your malicious intent to frame Fascism in such a way is in this case expression of ignorance about the ideology.
To make it abundantly clear: Fascism is not just totalitarianism or just intolerance towards other groups or just the ingroup-outgroup dichotomy, those are all aspects of Fascism but not exclusive to this ideology
Your second mistake, which then follows from your incorrect understanding of Fascism is the notion that because Fascism is not inherently tied to any values can be practiced by everybody who engages in violent intolerance against the stereotyped image of the "enemy".
You fail to understand that Fascism is worldview with values that make it distinct from other ideologies.
You are wrong when you equate Fascism or any other totalitarian ideology to one another simply BECAUSE they are totalitarian in practice as that reduces the political spectrum to one perpective and metric through which lenses i can be observed: the statist axis.
You are reducing those ideologies or in other words by restricting observation to the role of the state within the ideoloy are creating a false equivalence between all libertarian and all totalitarian ideologies.
What you are missing is multiple perpectives, like economics or the culture, especially when talking about culture you will see just how right wing Fascism and Nazism is.
I am not claiming that Fascism or Nazism are inherently right or left, I claim that they are a mixture of extremes from bothe the right AND left(again if regard culture in you analysis as well).
Here my explanation of what Fascism actually entails:
Facism is Socialism rooted in Nationality, and thus should actually be the one having the name "National Socialism". Facism at it's core is national totalitarianism as the State within the fascist conception stands at the pinnacle of societal hierachy within the Nation.The Fascist sees the State as God, the organic essence of Life. It is nationalistic infact ultranationalistic and palingentic because it is a rejection of Marxist INTERNATIONAL Socialism but Fascism does not stand in opposition to Socialism in and of itself. Fascism rejects the cosmopolitan elements of Marxism not its Socialist root and origin, Socialism is a Spectrum after all and Marxism is just one variant. The definition of the Nation within fascism is rooted in spiritual ideas not exactly in Race, which was also conceptiolized as spiritual. Fascism is NOT inherently racist, but it CAN be in its various ways of expression.
Fascism as such is therefore ultraconservative that is to say far right culutraly as they advocate for extreme traditionalism, and somewhat leftist in it's economical views since fascism is derived from syndicalism.
The most defining characteristic of Fascism however is and will allways remain it's totalitarian integral ULTNATIONALISM which absolutely a radical rightwing political position.
1
-
1
-
Certain ideas like Nazism, Fascism, Islamism, Stalinism, Christian Fundamentalism etc., are by reason of their fundamental rejection of freedom of speech out not to be allowed to spread their ideas.
We must never become victims of our own tolerance.
Freedom of speech is a political categorical imperative.
We ought to act only according to the political maxim that if universalized produces logically a non contradiction to freedom of speech.
If we were to universalise the political Maxims of lets say Nazims, that is to say raise them an general law, raise to the height of an absolute, would the society that results from it be a positove affirmation of freedom of speech?
If the answer is yes, then freedom of speech is preserved as a principle, and therefore should be granted to Nazis.
If the answer is not then freedom of speech is destroyed as apriori principle and
therefore it MUST NOT be granted to Nazis.
Supportimg Nazis freedom of speech is not an affirmation of it but actually a contradiction of of it as demonstrated by the categorical imperative.
I am not being hypocritical in slightest. I am philosophically consistent and purely logical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@learningchannel5937
Qotes from Mein Kampf to prove my definition:
1. Advocacy for Racism/anti-semitism
1. "In this case the only remaining hope was struggle, struggle with
all the weapons which the human spirit, reason, and will can
devise, regardless on which side of the scale Fate should lay its
blessing. Thus I began to make myself familiar with the founders of this
doctrine, in order to study the foundations of the movement. If I
reached my goal more quickly than at first I had perhaps
ventured to believe, it was thanks to my newly acquired, though
at that time not very profound, knowledge of the Jewish question.
This alone enabled me to draw a practical comparison between
the reality and the theoretical flimflam of the founding fathers of
Social Democracy, since it taught me to understand the language
of the Jewish people, who speak in order to conceal or at least to
veil their thoughts; their real aim is not therefore to be found in
the lines themselves, but slumbers well concealed between them.
For or me this was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I
have ever had to go through.
I had ceased to be a weakkneed cosmopolitan and become an
antiSemite.
Just once moreand this was the last timefearful, oppressive
thoughts came to me in profound anguish.
When over long periods of human history I scrutinized the
activity of the Jewish people, suddenly there rose up in me the
fearful question whether inscrutable Destiny, perhaps Or reasons
unknown to us poor mortals, did not with eternal and immutable
resolve, desire the final victory of this little nation.
Was it possible that the earth had been promised as a reward to
this people which lives only for this earth?
Have we an objective right to struggle for our selfpreservation,
or is this justified only subjectively within ourselves?
As I delved more deeply into the teachings of Marxism and thus
in tranquil clarity submitted the deeds of the Jewish people to
contemplation, Fate itself gave me its answer.
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle
of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength
by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the
value of personality in man, contests the significance of
nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the
premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order
intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of ail
recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law
could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the
inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over
the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral
wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands l of
years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her
commands.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
1
-
@learningchannel5937 2. Biological Essentialism
"The urge to preserve the species is the first cause for the
formation of human communities; thus the state is a national
organism and not an economic organization. A difference which
is just as large as it is incomprehensible, particularly to our so-
called ' statesmen ' of today. That is why they think they can
build up the state through economics while in reality it results
and always will result solely from the action of those qualities
which lie in line with the will to preserve the species and race."
1.3 Racial purity
"Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level
produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This
means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially
lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it
will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such
mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of
all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating
superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The
stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus
sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view
this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for
if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development
of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature,
is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races,
but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a
fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference
can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength,
intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual
specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude
might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese,
as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward
mice.
Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less
from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases,
Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle
for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less
determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the
female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the
healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a
species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of
its higher development.
If the process were different, all further and higher development
would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior
always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior
would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best
would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a
correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does
just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living
conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not
permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making
a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health."
National Socialism made the extermination and enslavement of those considered racially inferior its modus operandi.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
2. https://gplanost.x-berg.de/generalplaneast.html
3.http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/GPO/gpo%20sources.htm
4.https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Also Mein Kampf underlines the Genocidal and Imperialist Ambitions of the National Socialists.
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
The international poison is obviously the J E W S.
2. Racial Imperialism
"The folkish movement must not be the champion of other
peoples, but the vanguard fighter of its own. Otherwise it is
superfluous and above all has no right to sulk about the past. For
in that case it is behaving in exactly tbe same wav. The old
German policy was wrongly determined by dynastic
considerations, and the future policy must not be directed by
cosmopolitan folkish drivel. In particular, we are not constables
guarding the wellknown 'poor little nations,' but soldiers of our
own nation.
But we National Socialists must go further. The right to possess
soil can become a duty if without extension of its soil a great
nation seems doomed to destruction. And most especially when
not some little negro nation or other is involved, but the
Germanic mother of life, which has given the presentday world
its cultural picture. Germany will either be a world power or
there will be no Germany. And for world power she needs that
magnitude which will give her the position she needs in the
present period, and life to her citizens.
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath
the foreign policy tendency of our preWar period. We take up
where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless
German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze
toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial
and commercial policy of the preWar period and shift to the soil
policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in
mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing P
ussia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that
intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its
existence as a state. For the organization of a Russian state
formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs
in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the stateforming
efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous
mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower
nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more
than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured
as long as the racial nudeus of the creative state race maintained
itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic
nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as
almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been
replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by
himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it
is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire
forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment
of decomposition. The Persian I empire in the east is ripe for
collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the
end of Russia as a state. We have been chosen by Fate as
witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest
confirmation of the soundness of the folkish theory.
Our task, the mission of the National Socialist movement, is to
bring our own people to such political insight that they will not
see their goal for the future in the breathtaking sensation of a
new Alexander's conquest, but in the industrious work of the
German plow, to which the sword need only give soil."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
To conclude this comment, lets cite an actual National Socialist and his stance to freedom of speech.
"When our opponents say: Yes, we used to grant you the [...] freedom of opinion - - yes, you us, that is no reason that we ought do the same to you! [...] That you gave this to us - that is proof of how stupid you are!"
- Josef Goebbels (December 4, 1935)
And while he was the Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich, notorious for lying to the public in that instance he was absolutly right!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hyperboreer sapere aude Ich erfreue mich sehr an der Tatsache, dass ich Sie wieder in der Kommentarsektion antreffe, wobei ich freilich nicht auf den Gedanken gekommen wäre, dass Ihr, Herr "sapere aude" (Kant nehme ich an), Euch auf dem Kanal, des Systemlings Mirko D. herumtreiben würdet.
(Ich bin voller Hoffnung, dass Euer Verstand Sie dazu befähigt die Ironie im letzten Abschnitt des Satzes zu detektieren. Wenn dem nicht so sein sollte, so ist nun klar geworden, dass ich mich der Ironie bediene :)
Wo ihr doch dabei seit, und in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass ihr Beitrag nur zwei Wochen in der zeitlichen Ferne liegt, so würde ich mich doch darüber erfreuen, wenn es eure natürliche Renitenz es nicht verweigert, zu explanieren welche Gesetzmäßigkeiten in des Führers literarisch- politischem Werk und Manifest, denn noch heute irgendwelche Gültigkeit besäßen. Mir dünkt Ihnen ist die Idiotie dieses Werkes vollkommen entgangen, noch weiter dünkt mir, weit aus gewichtiger, so erachte ich, dass Ihr ein dezidierter Verfechter dieser Ideologie sind, was unsere bisherigen Konversationen zu validieren scheinen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
@FactsFirst 1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hitlers genocidal Regime was in no shape or form incompetent in the "art of killing" in fact they are absolute masters, or does Auschwitz - Birkenau, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, Kulmhof, Buchenwald and much MUCH MORE sound like incompetence to you?
Also it is very telling that despite 6 years of war, Hitler manages to make it on the list of greatest mass murders in human history, demonstrating quite a high extermination rate. The only reason his bodycount is "relativly low" (that being third place) is that he did not have the means to implement his overtly Genocidal Dystopia.
Also the National Socialists killed far more than one anticipates. Hitler is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of over 20 million people of which at least 12 Million can be attributed to the Holocaust and indirectly caused the death of arround 50 million europeans. As a consequence he killed about the same amount if not even far more the highest estimates of Joseph Stalins Body Count only overshadowed ny Mao depending on how somebody counts.
The fact is Hitler is in Europe oncontested Massmurdere number 1.
1.My main Source is:
Democide
Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder
By
R. J. Rummel
The two other links are related to the source
2.https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM
3. https://scottmanning.com/content/nazi-body-count/
National Socialism made the extermination and enslavement of those considered racially inferior its modus operandi.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
2. https://gplanost.x-berg.de/generalplaneast.html
3.http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/GPO/gpo%20sources.htm
4.https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Also Mein Kampf underlines the Genocidal and Imperialist Ambitions of the National Socialists.
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
The international poison is obviously the J E W S.
2. Racial Imperialism
"The folkish movement must not be the champion of other
peoples, but the vanguard fighter of its own. Otherwise it is
superfluous and above all has no right to sulk about the past. For
in that case it is behaving in exactly tbe same wav. The old
German policy was wrongly determined by dynastic
considerations, and the future policy must not be directed by
cosmopolitan folkish drivel. In particular, we are not constables
guarding the wellknown 'poor little nations,' but soldiers of our
own nation.
But we National Socialists must go further. The right to possess
soil can become a duty if without extension of its soil a great
nation seems doomed to destruction. And most especially when
not some little negro nation or other is involved, but the
Germanic mother of life, which has given the presentday world
its cultural picture. Germany will either be a world power or
there will be no Germany. And for world power she needs that
magnitude which will give her the position she needs in the
present period, and life to her citizens.
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath
the foreign policy tendency of our preWar period. We take up
where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless
German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze
toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial
and commercial policy of the preWar period and shift to the soil
policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in
mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing P
ussia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that
intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its
existence as a state. For the organization of a Russian state
formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs
in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the stateforming
efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous
mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower
nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more
than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured
as long as the racial nudeus of the creative state race maintained
itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic
nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as
almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been
replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by
himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it
is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire
forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment
of decomposition. The Persian I empire in the east is ripe for
collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the
end of Russia as a state. We have been chosen by Fate as
witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest
confirmation of the soundness of the folkish theory.
Our task, the mission of the National Socialist movement, is to
bring our own people to such political insight that they will not
see their goal for the future in the breathtaking sensation of a
new Alexander's conquest, but in the industrious work of the
German plow, to which the sword need only give soil."
In Regards of the Ukraine topic it must be said that the attrocities of the National Socialists far outweigh those of the Soviets despite the common claim that the Soviets were the sole butchers of the Ukraine.
The Nazis were indeed far worse and inflected deaths and casulties in some estimation as high as twice the size of the Holodomor on the Ukraine.(That of cource dows not make the Soviets exempt from any kind of guilt for those of you who are mentally deficient enough to title my a "Marxist apologist")
Sources:
1.https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-Nazi-occupation-of-Soviet-Ukraine
2.http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-19.html
3.https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/occupation-case-studies/ukraine/
4.http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CN%5CA%5CNaziwarcrimesinUkraine.htm
5. https://old.uinp.gov.ua (search for WW2
5.1 https://old.uinp.gov.ua/page/ukrainska-druga-svitova
5.1 type in this link "https://old.uinp.gov.ua +files/pdf Ukraine ww2" (just copy what I wrote in quotations) in the searchbar and you will recieve an eyeopening pdf about the suffering of the Ukrainians at the hand of the National Socialists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AANasseh
"Wherever you read that little gem of misinformation their goal is to use a power play by contorting words and manipulating ideas to fit their narrative against Peterson. "
What narrative have I constructed against JP? I stated an empirically verifiable fact about the nature of the term Cultural Marxism.
" The term Cultural Marxism is not anti-Semitic. It's only people who are trying to stop that label who are desperately trying to associate it with anti-semitism."
On this one you could not be more wrong. The term cultural Marxism is a direct and I repeat DIRECT modern political actualization of the term CULTURAL BOLSHEVISM that was LITERALLY created by the National Socialists and used by critics favorable to them during the the weimar republic to essentially complain about ANY PIECE OF CULTURE that was in their mind pushing for "racial degeneracy" and broader keft wing egalitarian ideals. The was in the mind of the Nazis a "plot by the hsiwej (read backwards) people" to usher in Marxism from a cultural perpective to destroy the aryan race. This idea stems directly from it's inherently anti-semitic source that is JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM (also created by the Nazis for the same reason).
Arguing this is somehow not antisemtic is the equivalent of trying to argue that the saying the N-word to black individual is not inherently racist, it doesn't make any sense.
"I'm a liberal, but the far Left is a problem right now for even handed, moderate liberalism precisely because Leftists are so manipulative this way. Of course, the far right is the same in its own way."
Ok? Centrsim much i gues. I guess you might be right on this in some instances.
"But currently, we're talking about the Far Left who loves to label moderate people like JP as Nazis, anti-Semitic, and all kinds of labels only because he supports traditional liberal values"
I NEVER SAID JP WAS A NAZI, merely stated that he at times uses rhetoric that alligns itself with that a Fascism and Nazism
"Truth, Knowledge, Reason, Progress.... and not the same Leftists Marxist ideas of oppressor : oppressed narrative. He stands for individual responsibility, not collective guilt."
That is true, again I am not arguing that JP is a collectivist in any way, that was not my point..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HemlockRidge You are actually incorrect. Facism is Socialism rooted in Nationality, and thus should actually be the one having the name "National Socialism". Facism at it's core is national totalitarianism as the State within the fascist conception stands at the pinnacle of societal hierachy within the Nation.The Fascist sees the State as God, the organic essence of Life. It is nationalistic infact ultranationalistic and palingentic because it is a rejection of Marxist INTERNATIONAL Socialism but Fascism does not stand in opposition to Socialism in and of itself. Fascism rejects the cosmopolitan elements of Marxism not its Socialist root and origin, Socialism is a Spectrum after all and Marxism is just one variant. The definition of the Nation within fascism is rooted in spiritual ideas not exactly in Race, which was also conceptiolized as spiritual. Fascism is NOT inherently racist, but it CAN be in its various ways of expression. It is completly possible to have an anti-racist/non-racist Fascist but its impossible to have a non racist Nazi.
The reason for this is because National Socialim (which should be refered to as Fascism) is inherently RACIAL. Nazism/ Hitlerism is racist and it must be in order to set itself apart from Marxsim. Nazism is RACIAL SOCIALISM, Socialism for the "Aryan Race" to be precise. The socialization or nationalization (the Socialism) of the Race requires the RACIAL REMOVAL/EXTERMINATION of the the Jews and other enemy collectivs which pose a threat to the RACIAL/BLOOD PURITY of the socialized Race. Hitlers Socialism is his racism, is his antisemitism. By denying the commonality of Socialism between Marxism, Facsim and Nazism you are denying the ideological grounding on which the Holocaust took place, You are engaging in Denialism and historical Distortion of truth.
Again what seperates Marxist Socialism from National Socialism is RACE. Do not take it from me but the man himself:
"The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its WELTANSCHAUUNG.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a WELTANSCHAUUNG. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." (Hitler, Mein Kampf)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blind wird das Volk sein. Blind wird das Volk bleiben.
Armes Volk, armes Volk...
Der nächste demagogische Herrscher ist auf dem Weg
Armes Volk, armes Volk...
Belügen wird man euch. Zu ideologischen Sklaven werdet ihr und meint erlöst worden zu sein.
Armes Volk, armes Volk
Zuerst nehmen sie euch den kritischen Geist, doch lassen sie euch glauben ihr hättet diesen erlangt
Armes Volk, armes Volk...
Sie werden euch radikalisieren
Sie werden euch zu den Schlägern auf der Straße machen
Sie werden euch zu den Verfolgern ihrer politischen Feinde machen
Sie werden euch in die Armee bringen, um ihre Ziele zu verfolgen, nicht die des Volkes
Sie nennen sich dennnoch "Volksvertreter"
Ihr werdet die Verfolger sein
Ihr werdet die Mörder sein
Und Gerechtigkeit werden ihr es nennen, so haben es "die da oben" euch beigebracht
Doch wenn der Tag der Abrechnung kommt, werdet ihr diejenigen sein, die bezahlen werden, nicht euer Herrscher
Der bereits über alle Berge...
Ihr werdet euer zerstörtes Heim wiederaufbauen müssen, nicht der Herrscher
Ihr werdet bluten und schwitzen müssen, nicht der Herrscher
Ihr werdet eure Heimat auf Vordermann bringen müssen, nicht der Herrscher
Doch erinnert ihr euch?
Wisst ihr wie es so weit kommen konnte?
Die Masse wird es progressiv vergessen
Blind ist das Volk. Blind wird es bleiben
Der nächste demagogische Herrscher ist auf dem Weg.
Euer Leichtsinn wird euch blenden
Armes Volk, armes Volk...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Meines Erachtens nach sollte die Abtreibung nur dann ein rechtlich zulässiges Mittel sein, wenn die Schwangerschaft aus widerrechtlichen Vorgängen (Vergewaltigung) resultiert.
Wenn ich meine Sichtweise erläutern darf: Das Kind sollte in aller erster Linie nicht existieren, auch wenn es genauso wenig was für seine Existenz kann wie seine Mutter. Es ist ein Kolatralschaden und zu dem ungewollt. Es auf die Welt zu bringen ist eine konstante Erinnerung an dieses schreckliche, erniedrigende und entwürdigendes Ereignis für das Individuum, dabei habe ich die Vergwaltigung noch nicht ein mal miteibezogen. Der Körperliche Schaden mag womöglich "verkraftbar" sein, jedoch ist der seelische immens oftmals irreparabel. Eine permanente Belastung, welche zu Depressionen pervertieren kann.
Dann auch noch von der Frau das Austragen des Kindes zu fordern halte ich für eine Missachtung ihrer Mneschenwürde, die "unantasbar" bleiben muss, erinnert euch das Grundgesetz.
Die Schwangerschaft an sich lasse ich mal außen vor.
Eine äquivalente Analogie wäre einen körperlich behinderten, der druch einen Unfall, den er nicht verschuldet hat, in diesen Zustand geriet, dazu zu fordern ohne Schadensersatz selbst finanziell dafür aufzukommen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@duszkin Thats not what socialism means.
1. Socialism and Communism used to mean the same thing when these terms were invented. Marx himself used those interchangebly and many other socialists Marxist or Not did the same at his time. It was only with the Bolshevik Revolution with the genesis of Leninism that those terms were Differentiated in meaning. It was Lenin who brought us that distinction, writing "The goal of Socialism is Communism" in his book "The State and Revolution."
2. Socialism has always been about the collectivization of society's means of production, before during and after Karl Marx. Thus Socialists/Communists of all Kinds at all Times have always rejected Private ownership of enterprise, Land and other such things in principle. Thats universal to socialists/communists
3. What defines Socialism is its constructivist egalitarianism, which by the way defines the left as whole. The belief that man is what he makes of himself and that just world is where man is equal with all members of his species is paramount to all leftism especially Socialism and Communism. The Proposition then that the Nazis, who are staunch anti egalitarian social Darwinists believing in the inherent inquality of the races/nations as well as the superiority and right to dominate of their own the "Aryan Race" which makes them as anti-leftists as is conceptually possible, could be left wing is francly ridiculous. Its absurd.
Socialism and Private Property are mutually exclusive
Nationalism, of the kind practiced by the Nazis, one fueled by racial puritanism and supremacism instead of national liberation as can be seen with the many anti-colonial movements in the second half of the 20th century, is absolutely contradicted by Socialism.
Nazism or any other Form ethnonationalism, which Nazism essentially was, and socialist Patriotism are not the same, not even close.
1
-
1
-
@waltergrace565 Thats not what socialism means.
1. Socialism and Communism used to mean the same thing when these terms were invented. Marx himself used those interchangebly and many other socialists Marxist or Not did the same at his time. It was only with the Bolshevik Revolution with the genesis of Leninism that those terms were Differentiated in meaning. It was Lenin who brought us that distinction, writing "The goal of Socialism is Communism" in his book "The State and Revolution."
2. Socialism has always been about the collectivization of society's means of production, before during and after Karl Marx. Thus Socialists/Communists of all Kinds at all Times have always rejected Private ownership of enterprise, Land and other such things in principle. Thats universal to socialists/communists
3. What defines Socialism is its constructivist egalitarianism, which by the way defines the left as whole. The belief that man is what he makes of himself and that just world is where man is equal with all members of his species is paramount to all leftism especially Socialism and Communism. The Proposition then that the Nazis, who are staunch anti egalitarian social Darwinists believing in the inherent inquality of the races/nations as well as the superiority and right to dominate of their own the "Aryan Race" which makes them as anti-leftists as is conceptually possible, could be left wing is francly ridiculous. Its absurd.
Socialism and Private Property are mutually exclusive
Nationalism, of the kind practiced by the Nazis, one fueled by racial puritanism and supremacism instead of national liberation as can be seen with the many anti-colonial movements in the second half of the 20th century, is absolutely contradicted by Socialism.
Nazism or any other Form ethnonationalism, which Nazism essentially was, and socialist Patriotism are not the same, not even close.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richard7199 Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
@Gabrielle Pangilinan Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok normally I would not devote any time to the utter stupidity that prager U delievers on a daily basis, for my time would be better spend elsewhere divorced from their mental regression but this Absurdity of a video was so frustrating partly because many of the presented arguments are regurgitated that much by smooth brained conservatives that I just can't help but responding to it. To those who read it. Read and reply or don't, I do not care. So let's proceed to debunk this nonsense shall we?
0:11 Nobody I have ever met has ever claimed that white people were the only ones participating in slavery let alone creating it in the first place as that would be an expression of historical illiteracy. However if that statement is applied exclusivly to america then it would be absolutly factually correct to claim so.
0:11- 0:21 Yes, it is widely known that slavery was an integral component of the vast majority of civilisations before the colonization of America. You are attempting to debunk what essentially a Strawmen.
0:21 - 0:38 Again we know that slavery preceded the Colonization of North America etc. But most importantly what exactly is the Implication being made here? Are sugesting that the fact that slavery existed in pre-colonized North America among Native tribes somehow justifies the european settlers doing the same, following the logic of "iT iS oKaY SiNcE eVERyboDY dId iT"
0:38- 1:42 This is as I already stated a regurgitation of Facts already known to most people. It all relates to your attempt of debunking the idea that slavery is a "white phenomenon" which nobody believes in in the first place. The information regarding the context is meaningless. Your facts and stance here is NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
1:42- 1:50 That is factually INCORRECT. A cursory google search should abundantly reveal this truth to you.
Here are some sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
2.https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/12/haiti-was-first-nation-permanently-ban-slavery/
The Persian Empire for instance abolished slavery, so did China though the head of state was murdered by an angry mob. Haiti following it's Revolution ended slavery, it is not exclusive to white people. Also notice the white savior complex that is slowing but surely showing itself?
1:58 Slavery had already been abolished in multiple forms WAY before Britian even existed. You are trying to make it look like Britian was the only country that came up with the idea of making slavery illegal which it was most certainly not.
2:07 - 2:11 That is probalbly one of the major contentions I have with the video which compelled me to write this long comment. To be clear what is said is factually correct but relevant information is not mentioned which is VERY deceptive. The 13 th Amendmant had to passed after a lengthy civil war in which hundreds of thousands died among other reasons also to free the slaves. It was NOT natural to "THE GLORIOUS WHITE MEN", it took a war .The very people who partook on the side of the Confederacy by the way are being revered in the south which can be ascribed to the nationalist education there which distorts southern history for the sake of the states rights narrative.
2:16 Again Slavery was already abolished in various countries before the Us even existed annd secondly notice the white saviour complex? The language being used is pretty revealing of your deceptive intentions.
2:24 The civil war was white men fighting white men! I thought the glorious white men were in favor of the abolition of slavery then why were white men fighting each other. Also you do not get to take credit for the war effort of the Union when its is clear that you would have supported the confedaracy.
2:29 Pepelaugh yeah right, sure. Okay, but genuinly that is what have spend the entire video doing up until this point, showinf the universality of slavery to relativte if not outright justify that of white people and then painting them as saviors of alle the slaves in world. Again the white savior complex.
2:33 No you are Not trying to tell the truth at all. You are implicitly ascribing to non-existend people a position that noone holds then proceed to invoke a racialzed saviour complex as you tried to absolve white people of a guilt they do not even have to bear since they did not participate in these crimes.
2:39 How ironic! I THOUGHT YOU CONSERVATIVES LOVED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALITY. Skin colours (a rather races, what really wanted to say Pepelaugh) cannot be collectivly guilty only individuals of said skin colour. That is the whole premise you base the agrument around that white people should not feel guilty. One cannot assign blame to a group of people. Remarcable that I need to express this belief of mine towards of conservative... Well mabye it is because you really are not as individualist as think of yourself as Miss Owens :)
2:39- 2:54 Agian are you trying to suggest that because slavery was present in other civilisations (btw: very funny how you do not mention Nazi Germany) that therefore one cannot assign blame or express criticism to the actions of white people in the past by relativating them with those of other civilisations.
Also The Persian Empire did abolish slavery so did China at some point in it's many dynasties read the links I gave you
3:00 NOBODY BELIEVES THAT! THIS ENTIRE VIDEO IS BUILD ON A GODDAMN STRAWMEN, HOLY CHRIST!
3:12- 3:22 You came across a fotoshoped instagram post and the extrapolated from this that all leftists I assume thought like this.
2. Actually some tribes and peoples in Africa did have formidable civisations prior to the colonization like Mali Empire for instance.
Also again is the implication here that Africans are a backwards people who were saved by the superior Europeans, because Africa is still in bad shape today?
3:25
1. That does not make Europeans exempt from guilt because they still participated in the slave trade (which was a free market by the way)
2. The African slaves were sold by competing tribes for money and luxary not just the low value items that are depicted in this video. There was a Very high demand for slaves back then
3. Very important: Europeans bought these slaves because they it was more convenient not form moral reasons. It is cheaper to buy a slave from a King then it is to invade enslave and sell an entire people.
3:36
Wrong in some cases they did. But it was rather uncommon because buying them from the tribes was more profitable.
Well I am not done yet I will continue this...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Peter Paul B. Meines Erachtens nach sollte die Abtreibung nur dann ein rechtlich zulässiges Mittel sein, wenn die Schwangerschaft aus widerrechtlichen Vorgängen (Vergewaltigung) resultiert.
Wenn ich meine Sichtweise erläutern darf:
Das Kind sollte in aller erster Linie nicht existieren, auch wenn es genauso wenig was für seine Existenz kann wie seine Mutter. Es ist ein Kolatralschaden und zu dem ungewollt. Es auf die Welt zu bringen ist eine konstante Erinnerung an dieses schreckliche, erniedrigende und entwürdigendes Ereignis für das Individuum, dabei habe ich die Vergwaltigung noch nicht ein mal miteibezogen. Der Körperliche Schaden mag womöglich "verkraftbar" sein, jedoch ist der seelische immens oftmals irreparabel. Eine permanente Belastung, welche zu Depressionen pervertieren kann.
Dann auch noch von der Frau das Austragen des Kindes zu fordern halte ich für eine Missachtung ihrer Mneschenwürde, die "unantasbar" bleiben muss, erinnert Euch an das Grundgesetz.
Die Schwangerschaft an sich lasse ich mal außen vor.
Eine äquivalente Analogie wäre beispielsweise einen körperlich behinderten, der druch einen Unfall, den er nicht verschuldet hat, in diesen Zustand geriet, dazu zu fordern ohne Schadensersatz selbst finanziell dafür aufzukommen.
Ein Verbot der der Abtreibung auf gesetzlicher Ebene durchzusetzen wäre keineswegs ein Erfolg, sondern ein von Niedertracht erfülltes Armutszeugnis für unsere ach so zivilierte Gesellschaft...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shidcat9322
You o not even know what Fascism is...
1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
To conclude this comment, lets cite an actual National Socialist and his stance to freedom of speech.
"When our opponents say: Yes, we used to grant you the [...] freedom of opinion - - yes, you us, that is no reason that we ought do the same to you! [...] That you gave this to us - that is proof of how stupid you are!"
- Josef Goebbels (December 4, 1935)
And while he was the Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich, notorious for lying to the public in that instance he was absolutly right!
1
-
@mosshivenetwork117 Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
To conclude this comment, lets cite an actual National Socialist and his stance to freedom of speech.
"When our opponents say: Yes, we used to grant you the [...] freedom of opinion - - yes, you us, that is no reason that we ought do the same to you! [...] That you gave this to us - that is proof of how stupid you are!"
- Josef Goebbels (December 4, 1935)
And while he was the Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich, notorious for lying to the public in that instance he was absolutly right!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrGrizzlle 1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
@amitb.e.5244 1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@therealtruth460
So much mental deficiency...
" The foreign policy of a People's State must first of all bear in mind the duty of securing the existence of the race which is incorporated in this State. And this must be done by establishing a healthy and natural proportion between the number and growth of the population on the one hand and the extent and resources of the territory they inhabit, on the other. That balance must be such that it accords with the vital necessities of the people. What I call a HEALTHY proportion is that in which the support of a people is guaranteed by the resources of its own soil and sub-soil. Any situation which falls short of this condition is none the less unhealthy even though it may endure for centuries or even a thousand years. Sooner or later, this lack of proportion must of necessity lead to the decline or even annihilation of the people concerned. Only a sufficiently large space on this earth can assure the independent existence of a people. The extent of the territorial expansion that may be necessary for the settlement of the national population must not be estimated by present exigencies nor even by the magnitude of its agricultural productivity in relation to the number of the population. In the first volume of this book, under the heading "Germany's Policy of Alliances before the War," I have already explained that the geometrical dimensions of a State are of importance not only as the source of the nation's foodstuffs and raw materials, but also from the political and military standpoints. Once a people is assured of being able to maintain itself from the resources of the national territory, it must think of how this national territory can be defended. National security depends on the political strength of a State, and this strength, in its turn, depends on the military possibilities inherent in the geographical situation. Thus the German nation could assure its own future only by being a World Power."
-Hitler mein Kampf
he soul of the masses can be won only if those who lead the movement for that purpose are determined not merely to carry through the positive struggle for their own aims but are also determined to destroy the enemy that opposes them. When they see an uncompromising onslaught against an adversary the people have at all times taken this as a proof that right is on the side of the active aggressor; but if the aggressor should go only half-way and fail to push home his success by driving his opponent entirely from the scene of action, the people will look upon this as a sign that the aggressor is uncertain of the justice of his own cause and his half-way policy may even be an acknowledgment that his cause is unjust. The masses are but a part of Nature herself. Their feeling is such that they cannot understand mutual hand-shakings between men who are declared enemies. Their wish is to see the stronger side win and the weaker wiped out or subjected unconditionally to the will of the stronger. The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if, in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people, those who spread the international poison among them are exterminated. "
-Hitler mein Kampf
"We National Socialists have to go still further. The right to territory may become a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under unless its territory be extended. And that is particularly true when the nation in question is not some little group of negro people but the Germanic mother of all the life which has given cultural shape to the modern world. Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to exist at all. But in order to become a World Power it needs that territorial magnitude which gives it the necessary importance to-day and assures the existence of its citizens. Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop to the colonial and trade policy of pre-War times and pass over to the territorial policy of the future. But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally think of Russia and the border States subject to her. Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here. In delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russian people of that intellectual class which had once created the Russian State and were the guarantee of its existence. For the Russian State was not organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth."
-Hitler Mein Kampf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snowyren5135 Then you are sadly mistaken, as the racial folkish philosophy of the National Socialists necessitated an extremly conservative/traditionalist order in which a great infact overwelming enphasis was put on German culture and German thought. The strengh of the expression of conservatism within the third Reich was of course dependent on the degree to which such traditionalism was compatible with the interest of the totalitarian state, which could defy the national tradition if it choses it, but that does not make Nazism any less conservative/traditionalist in Nature.
For insatnce the Nazis tried to synchronize the Church with the NS-Ideology by creating a National Church, and they had a significant amount of supporters from the Church, some of them even occupying significant positions for instance there was ta movement that was called "Deutsche Christen" that sought to harmonize Christianity with Nazism or Johann Heinrich Ludwig Müller who was a Bishop of the Reich during it's existence.
Expression of traditionalism can be found in the family structure and Gender-roles as an example.
That is to say:A great emphasis on the nuclear family, men going to work, women staying at home giving birth to healthy Aryan/German children (very important) and raising them, emphasis on German culture and heritage through Ethnonationalism, rejection of the principles of Modernity which brought individualism, and egalitarianism and therefore a rejection of social progressivism (Lgbtq-People for instance, they were eradicated under the Nazis), deep emphasis on a conservative (a little bit redundant here) racial hierarchical stratification and traditional hierarchy patriarchy (meaning men above woman socially speaking)
To argue that National Socialism was not traditionalist in nature or proggressive is ludacrious
Also the critique of Cultural Bolshevism, or it's modern form Cultural marxism which was based on a deeply antisemtic conspiracy belief that the international Jewry was using culture as a means to introduce Marxism and degenerate the culture of Germany durkng the Weimar Republic demonstrates on this ground alone the National Socialism was culturally absolutly different and diametricaly opposed to Marxism and in this sense way closer the fascism in regards to culture as they adopt many of the same critiques and practices as Nazis except for the vitriolic antisemitism.
The Idea that Nazism (and Fascism) is not socially way more traditionalist than Marxian Socialism is an analytical mischaracterization of both Marxism and Nazism, and completly unsupported by factual emprical evidence as the way how these movements manifested in Reality allow great insight of social ideology in place which does in no way confrom to your ideas of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bob Lars "I like how you attempt and fail to justify labeling non Nazis as Nazis just because they disagree with you."
1. You didn't read what I said. Disagreement was not the reason why I considered the harming or at the very least the freedom restrictions as it pertains to public discourse necessary.
2. The reason I gave if you just took the time to read more carefully was that National Socialism is an intrinsically genocidal ideology if I remeber correctly i even went as far as directly quoting from Mein Kampf, Hitlers Manifesto.
3. No I do not seek to label everbody as Nazis, slippery slope does not work here. A National Socialist is sombody who expresse agreement with the ideological fundamental tenets of National Socialism (such as racial National, antisemtism, Racialism as well as Racism). In fact let me give a clear cut definition since semantical precision is such an exorbitant importance to you.
National Socialism is palingenetic pan germanic racial ultranationalist totalitarianism with an intrinsic social darwinistic philosophy of exterminatory and supremacist racial struggle combined with in inherent doctrine of manifest destiny (that is ultra racist genocidal imperialist colonialism).
There you it I am very precise about who is and is not a Nazi or adjascent to Nazism. The argument from pedantry does not work.
"so harming drug dealers and thugs is necessary? Go to the ghetto and try that I dare you. Watch how fast you get shut down."
1. False analogy
1.1 Drug dealers and thugs while being violent and generally harmfull do not operate on the modus operandi to systematically exterminate and or dominate entire demographics and groups of people...
1.2 ...and advocate for such things in public!
2. Relevant detail
2.1The practicability of practice does not indicate anything about it's moral merit. The fact that harming or rather restricting (violently if necessary) Nazis may be ineffictive does not make it morally indeffencible, just to make that clear
"aren't you the ones advocating for open white genocide?"
1. No, are you an alt-righter?
2. Where have I advocated for an open holocaust on white people?
Oh wait... Do you think that killing Nazis equates to white genocide because "mUh aRiAaAn rAcE, mUh fOrdEeEn wArDS!"
because that would border mental deficiency if not outright outclass ( or rather in this case declass) it.
Another important thing I must tell you.
Nazis do not believe in free speech, the free marketplace of ideas, freedom of assemblee, human rights and that was even made clear in the last section of my comment where I quoted Josef Goebbels.
So tell me why should we give rights to Nazis anyway, infact sending them to massgraves would much more in ligne with THEIR ideology, it would be selfdefence
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SteelSunday
1.Hitler wasn't a fascist. Do you even know what fascism is?
2. Hitler was a National Socialist which completly distinct form fascism both politically and philosophically. They are similar They aren't the same thing! And it isn't even the case that National Socialism is an expression of fascism, it simply doesn't contain fascist thought at all.
Let me define the terms:
Fascism:
Fascism can be regarded as the final totalitarian and collectivist synthesis between palingentic Nationalism, Syndicalism and Actualism. In other words Fascism is an ultranationalist and totalitarian expression of syndicalism. James A. Gregor in his book "Mussolinis Intellectuals" does a fantastic Job describing the evolution of the political and Social doctrine of Fascism out of revolutionary Syndicalism and Nationalism (Mentioning theorists: Such as Gentile, Rocco, Spirito, Carrodoni and Panunzio).
Fascism is Nationalist because it meant for the Italian People, seeking to initiate a revolution (a national rebirth) for them. It is syndicalist because it seeks organize society into nationalized Trade Unions which it calls Corporations ( NOT PRIVATELY OWNED BUISNESSES, but nationally, publicly state directed organs of Society) and it is Actualist because Idealism is ontological basis of fascist ideology
Nazism:
Nazism is totalitarian pan-germanic Aryanism with a philosphy of materialist and naturalist racial essetialism and social darwinism. It traces its origines back to racial theories of the late 19th century. Just read Mein Kampf.
See the difference
3. The argument doesn't make any sense. Just because Hitler persecuted MARXISTS doesn't mean that he could't have been a socialist. Do you know who else persecuted the Socialists? The Strasserists and they are concieved as being the ACTUAL SOCIALISTS of the NSDAP, which Hitler eliminated in the night of the long knives. Infact the night of the long knives Argument is an ADMISSION that Nazism (namely Strasserism) can be Socialist and yet be staunchly anti-Marxist! By the way Stalin also persecuted Socialists who disagreed with him such Trotsky. Was Stalin no real Socialist then, or even, God forbid, right wing? You need to draw a distinction between Socialisms and Marxism. Not all Socialists, I REPEAT, NOT ALL SOCIALISTS ARE MARXISTS! MARXISM IS BUT A VARIANT OF SOCIALISM! YOU CAN BE AGAINST MARXISM AND STILL BE SOCIALST OR EVEN A COMMUNIST! IT IS NOT A CONTRACDICTION IN TERMS TO BE AN ANTI-MARXIST SOCIALIST!
To make it short, so that you understand: H
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joemcbee 1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
@Hayden Branham 1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Candace Owens makes
Two mistakes and one appaling moral statement
1. Mistake: False definition of Nationalism
The common conservative conseption of Nationalism (which is quite often uttered by conservative Channels such as Prager U) is that there is an inherent contradiction between Nationalism and Imperialism.
This is passed on the following deductive Argument:
P1Nationalism is opposed to globalism
P2 Imperialism is a Form of Globalism
C. Nationalism is opposed to Imperialism
While the argument itself was logically valid it is not sound as the second Premise is factually incorrect.
Globalism is essentially more accuratly refered to as internationalism. Globalism is defined by the fact that it is declares that international interest ought to take precedance over national interest and if necessary even override national will. Internationalism therefore puts alot of focus on international cooporation and organization such as the UN or the European Union for instance.
Imperialism on the other hand while being international it's expression is always done out of National interest for the nation that engages in it seeks to maximize its own political, social, economical and military influence of over a wider region of Land outside of its borders. As such Imperialism is always a doctrine that can only be adabted by a Nation and can only arise out of one nation making it therefore a National initiative.
The idea that Nationalism presuposes an isolationist policy for foreign engament is completly incorect for a Nation can also adopt an expansionist doctrine while being dicted by the principles of Nationalism.
Expansionist Nationalism therefore equals to imperialist Nationalism simple as that. That as a logical consequence also allows us to view ideologies such as Fascism (in some instances such as itlaly, Hungary, Romania etc.) and National Socialism (which are distinct) as being both Nationalist (infact they could be descirbed as ultranationlist/jingoist) and Imperialist simulataniously.
Also if you believe that Hitler was no Nationalist you are disproven the very fact that National socialism revolves around the principles of Racial Nationalism/ totalitarian Ethnocentric Nationalism.
To provide you some quotes from Mein Kampf
1.Ethnocentric Nationalism as Fundametal value of Nazism
"The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its WELTANSCHAUUNG.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a WELTANSCHAUUNG. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." (Hitler, Mein Kampf)
2. Totalitarianism as means to preserve the Racial Nation
"The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence of the race, thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free development of all the forces dormant in this race. A great part of these faculties will always have to be employed in the first place to maintain the physical existence of the race, and only a small portion will be free to work in the field of intellectual progress. But, as a matter of fact, the one is always the necessary counterpart of the other.
Those States which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence. They are monstrosities."
-Hitler, Mein Kampf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Oh, how I despise this "Argument"
The idea that one needs to be part of the NSDAP or join any govermental/ state bodies to qualify as a "Nazi" is ludacrious and nonsensical as it is evident that National Socialism is an IDEOLOGY. THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MUST BE MET FOR ONE TO QUALIFY AS A NAZI IS TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH IDEOLOGICAL TENETS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
If you answer the following question
"Do you believe in National Socialism unconditionally"
You are a Nazi regardless if you part of NSDAP or the SS or any other thing. Because the existence of Nazism is not dictated by the existence of a party that explicitly espouses it's ideological axioms.
This argument is a non-sequitor and absolutly mind boggeling at how devoid of sence it is even on face value.
On could call it a Master piece of Nonsence.
And if you are talking about White Nationalists then following applies:
White Nationalists are National Socialists who have rejected the idea of inter-european racism and hiearchy.
Or in other words: If you were to loosen up the definition of what encompasses an "aryan" individual to the entirity of the white race, you get white nationalism.
White Nationalism is therefore adjascent to Nazism, ut really is just one step away from it, the rest remains the same.
2. Harming Nazis or not?
My answer:
Yes, Harming Criminals or people who are in open support of ideologies that inherently genocidal like Nazism if allowed to be practiced is not evil, but necessary.
Read very carefully, very carefully.
Notice How disagreemevnt is not mentioned nor implied as the issue here?
I didn't make the Argument that the Conditions that must be met for Harm to be a justifiable measure is met by a mere political disagreement and infact disagreement itself ought to never constitute a basis on which such harmfull activity should be justified on.
I made the argument that those who are in open support of ideologies that are inherently genocidal such as Nazism and would result in a Democide if they are allowed to flourish and realize their ideological aims contested by none, than violence is not only justified but necessary because I believe in Selfdefence and the preservation of a political system that protects the rights of it's citizens which Nazis and Stalinists don't.
I disagree with plenty of people on political matters yet the urge to punch them never even occured to me because of it.
Because in the Case of Nazis and all of the alike it is NOT the disagreement but the DANGER TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OTHERS THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE TO PUNCH NAZIS!
Just to give one instance in which Nazis call for Genocide:
Advocacy for Genocide
1. Genocide
"The soul of the people can only be won if along with carrying
on a positive struggle for our own aims, we destroy the opponent
of these aims.
The people at all times see the proof of their own right in ruthless
attack on a foe, and to them renouncing the destruction of the
adversary seems like uncertainty with regard to their own right if
not a sign of their own unriglxt.
The broad masses are only a piece of Nature and their sentiment
does not understand the mutual handshake of people who daim
that they want the opposite things. What they desire is the victory of the stronger and the destruction of the weak or his
unconditional subjection.
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside
from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their
international poisoners are exterminated."
(Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The international poison is obviously meant to be the J E W S. So Hitler is calling for Genocide in that instance, Years befor he actually qennt about to do it!
Nazis do not believe in human rights, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assemble as evidenced by how (the only possible way) Nazism (could) manifest in Germany, because it is totalitarian, simple as that.
Then why should we allow them to participate in our freedom supporting society to the full extend as other non-totalitarian ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism (libertarianism) does?
Think about it.
It all comes down to the paradox of tolerance. To protect tolerance one has to be intolerant to the intolerant. Excluding Nazis is not a morally reprehensible thing, the opposite is, as you will enable them to dismantle the very system you want to protect.
And besided violence is a very good tool to stop the spread of NationalSocialism.
As Hitler himself admidted:
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement“.
Source:
1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/zuriz.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/smashing-the-nucleus/amp/
2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/
3. https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slugger7512 The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
@obligatoryusername7239 The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
@newspaperbin6763 The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
@wlspspsps3642 The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
@wlspspsps3642 The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
1
-
卐 Hitler Loveϟϟ Anime 卐 Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
1
-
@newspaperbin6763 Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
@wlspspsps3642 Why is everybody acting like they were incapable of making their own descisions, even a brainwashed individual is still capable of making his own conscious choices and as such moral judgement still applies...
The Idea that Wehrmacht was never to be intended as an apolitical institution is empirically incorrect, as infact they were the very opposite.
The Nazis replaced the military oath of the Wehrmacht with an party political oath in 1934
The Third Reich isssued the Barbarossa decree, the Juristiction Decree, the Comissar Order and even gave Wehrmacht soldiers a clear code of behaviour in the Soviet Union.
The idea that, in consideration of all facts which are easily accesible, one could seperate the Wehrmacht from the totalitarian National Socialist Goverment IT WAS AN INSTITUTION AND AGENCY OF is ludacrious.
It does not matter wether the individual Wehrmacht soldier believed in Nazism, because they already had the classical prussian mentality that was dominated duty and honor, because the The Wehrmacht was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST INSTITUTION!
Additionally the Wehrmacht has historically speaking always been a breeding ground for radical far right ideas.
That of course does not mean that every individual German Soldier was a National Socialist, as I already implied.
Sources:
1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_decree
2. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Decree
3. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-military-oaths
4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_to_Hitler
5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_the_Conduct_of_the_Troops_in_Russia
6.
https://padresteve.com/tag/guidelines-for-the-conduct-of-troops-in-russia/
Additionally the "MuH FoLloWiNg ORdeRRss!" Excuse does not work
NO. You could refuse to follow orders and get away with it.
For instance Rommel during the North Africa Campaign recieved the order to execute every jewish officer during it but he burned the Order. Did he die? No.
Another instance is in which Josef Sibille who was a commanding Wehrmacht Officer recieved the Order from his Batallion Commander to murder all jews in his sphere of influence.
He refused. Did he die? No.
In his book War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, 3rd ed. ((Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 201–02. Reproduced by permission from Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group) Doris L. Bergen writes
"Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies."
Source:
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
They are even instance in which the Wehrmacht collaborated with SS to commit atrocities such as the Baltic States in which the Feldgandarmerie aided the SS in tge implementation of the Final Solution which further underlines the point of BOTH THE WEHRMACHT AND THE SS being Institution utilized for Hitlerian Genocidal Projects.
Source (translate in English):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/de/die-wehrmacht-und-der-holocaust-auf-freiem-feld/a-53354087
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1