Irony in modern times (Page 3/4)
sourmash DEC 31, 10:18 AM
If the NSDAP was out of the same/similar ideological political construct as what Antifa came out of, then America would be honoring the NAZIs with similar rigor as BLM and Antifa. There is not one element honored about what they represented. So the Rush Limbaugh presented theory won't work anymore, after we've seen demonstrated in our streets what the leftists believe and intend; death, arson, trannie-world, removal of cultural icons and historical symbols, elevation of trash to positions of power. And trust me, I've witnessed Rush spewing that erroneous theory in real time. He's a drug addict at the end of the day. The word socialism in NSDAP doesn't make them left wingers. Though I considered it so once upon a time just like you presented.

So clearly they, the NSDAP, were something quite different to be held as examples of what to hate for so long now. What was it? Ethnic Nationalism. Which was described as Blood and Soil. The land for the people who created it.
That is unforgivable to the left. It's unforgivable to the United States of Washington DC.

Antifa HATES the core people groups of the nation, just as they do in America. They're the darlings of the media globalists and the universities here as they were in Germany then.
NSDAP elevated the core people of the nation to be first class citizens. It made everyone else a lower tier of citizen. It demanded a moral structure from the people. Anyone can read and comprehend the 25 points and it wouldn't take 5 minutes to digest. None of it would sit with leftists, BLM and Antifa.

Antifa were crude, violent, undesirables just like our violent Antifa. The Brown Shirts were utilized to counter the violent attacks of Antifa after NAZIs were being attacked in the streets. They were make your bed, eat your vegetables, press your uniform, represent morality and kick someone's ass when they step out on you.

But in the end, the NSDAP was authoritarian and we don't want that here.
rinselberg DEC 31, 03:36 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
If the NSDAP was out of the same/similar ideological political construct as what Antifa came out of, then America would be honoring the NAZIs with similar rigor as BLM and Antifa. There is not one element honored about what they represented. So the Rush Limbaugh presented theory won't work anymore, after we've seen demonstrated in our streets what the leftists believe and intend; death, arson, trannie-world, removal of cultural icons and historical symbols, elevation of trash to positions of power. And trust me, I've witnessed Rush spewing that erroneous theory in real time. He's a drug addict at the end of the day. The word socialism in NSDAP doesn't make them left wingers. Though I considered it so once upon a time just like you presented.

So clearly they, the NSDAP, were something quite different to be held as examples of what to hate for so long now. What was it? Ethnic Nationalism. Which was described as Blood and Soil. The land for the people who created it. That is unforgivable to the left. It's unforgivable to the United States of Washington DC.

Antifa HATES the core people groups of the nation, just as they do in America. They're the darlings of the media globalists and the universities here as they were in Germany then. NSDAP elevated the core people of the nation to be first class citizens. It made everyone else a lower tier of citizen. It demanded a moral structure from the people.

Anyone can read and comprehend the 25 points and it wouldn't take 5 minutes to digest. None of it would sit with leftists, BLM and Antifa.

Antifa were crude, violent, undesirables just like our violent Antifa. The Brown Shirts were utilized to counter the violent attacks of Antifa after NAZIs were being attacked in the streets. They were make your bed, eat your vegetables, press your uniform, represent morality and kick someone's ass when they step out on you.

But in the end, the NSDAP was authoritarian and we don't want that here.


#15 seems like it would be amenable to Leftists. Leftists who have put on some age, or who particularly like their parents or grandparents. Or who can't get enough BINGO.

quote
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.


"The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program"
Internet History Sourcebooks Project; Fordham University.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/25points.asp

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-31-2020).]

Patrick DEC 31, 03:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:

Irony is passing around cigarettes outside the hospital where a family member is dying from throat cancer while wondering how he got the throat cancer.



Doctors themselves set a poor example for years. I had a girlfriend a couple of decades ago whose father was the head Orthopedic Surgeon in BC back in the 50's and 60's. We noticed in family photos of social events held at his recreational retreat, that all the guests (other doctors) had a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-31-2020).]

sourmash DEC 31, 07:15 PM

quote
But in the end, the NSDAP was authoritarian and we don't want that here.



I should've added: now take your shot, wear your mask, social distance and don't post on social media any challenges to the narrative or you'll get shut down, SLAVE!. Because we're the Land of the Free and not China.

[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-31-2020).]

randye DEC 31, 07:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:


The word socialism in NSDAP doesn't make them left wingers. Though I considered it so once upon a time just like you presented.





You don't have to take my word for it or anyone else's word today.

You can go straight to the "horse's mouth" and read the words of the creator, founder and head of the NSDAP, (Adolf Hitler), for yourself.

"National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."– May 1, 1933, May Day speech in Berlin

“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt

“The hammer will once more become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the sign of the German peasant.” – May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin

“Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same thing” – May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin

"We are socialists. We are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Hitler on May 1, 1927

"I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun, the whole of National Socialism is based on Marx." Hitler in a letter to Hermann Rauschning 1933

"Now that the age of individualism has ended, the task is to find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution". Hitler in a letter to Otto Wagener 1934

There are hundreds more examples, many of tem even more direct in Hitler's admissions of German National Socialism's foundation in Marxism.

All anyone needs to do is a small amount of research.

You're obviously entitled to believe whatever you want to.

By the way, despite your assumptions, I don't derive my data from or form my considered opinions based on media entertainers.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-31-2020).]

sourmash DEC 31, 08:46 PM
How close are Ethno-Nationalism and Marxism is an important contrast, so let's consider it. Are both tagged to the left at root? Because Germany also commanded high moral behavior for everyone, which is not what liberalism is rooted in. Everyone needed to work for it to be it's best.

Look, you're right and also I disagree is what I was trying to say and being abrasive, because of no coffee. So, I'm sorry about that. But let's say what you originally implied is 100% true (which I read to be that there is only a slight separation of NSDAP and what gave us Antifa), then it proves (1) that the propaganda against Germany is false and they're wrongly scape-goated. Because everybody knows Antifa and BLM are blessings of peaceful protest for us and Germany was the most evil thing to ever exist according to all Western sources. #undeniablestatement.
Or, (2) it proves they are dramatically enough different in practice.

Maybe the truth is somewhere other than the extremes.

The distinction is ethno-nationalism. Sure, they nationalized the banks and provided economic assistance without the usury of current Western countries. But the people that could be declared as citizens are who the spoils were reserved for. If Marxism is the people owning industry and sharing fairly in the profits, sure. But the people to benefit in their case weren't allowed to be non-Germanic people. And it only existed for like, 11 years, so what would it have been with the cycles stabilized around them domestically and in neighboring countries. Because Germany was accused of looting Europe through their currency valuations. I happen to support nationalizing the central bankng system.

Now about eth-nat, doesn't that bit make it vastly different? No, you don't have to agree.

Ethno-nationalism is only allowed to exist in our current world in the nation-state of Israel. So it's good for them but bad for everyone else including Germany of the 1930s. And they're working on the Arabs to liberalize them.

Hitler also lowered the age of gun ownership from the Allied dictate of 20 years of age to 18.
randye DEC 31, 09:12 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

How close are Ethno-Nationalism and Marxism is an important contrast, so let's consider it. Are both tagged to the left at root? Because Germany also commanded high moral behavior for everyone, which is not what liberalism is rooted in. Everyone needed to work for it to be it's best.

Look, you're right and also I disagree is what I was trying to say and being abrasive, because of no coffee. So, I'm sorry about that. But let's say what you originally implied is 100% true (which I read to be that there is only a slight separation of NSDAP and what gave us Antifa), then it proves (1) that the propaganda against Germany is false and they're wrongly scape-goated. Because everybody knows Antifa and BLM are blessings of peaceful protest for us and Germany was the most evil thing to ever exist according to all Western sources. #undeniablestatement.
Or, (2) it proves they are dramatically enough different in practice.

Maybe the truth is somewhere other than the extremes.

The distinction is ethno-nationalism. Sure, they nationalized the banks and provided economic assistance without the usury of current Western countries. But the people that could be declared as citizens are who the spoils were reserved for. If Marxism is the people owning industry and sharing fairly in the profits, sure. But the people to benefit in their case weren't allowed to be non-Germanic people. And it only existed for like, 11 years, so what would it have been with the cycles stabilized around them domestically and in neighboring countries. Because Germany was accused of looting Europe through their currency valuations. I happen to support nationalizing the central bankng system.

Now about eth-nat, doesn't that bit make it vastly different? No, you don't have to agree.

Ethno-nationalism is only allowed to exist in our current world in the nation-state of Israel. So it's good for them but bad for everyone else including Germany of the 1930s. And they're working on the Arabs to liberalize them.

Hitler also lowered the age of gun ownership from the Allied dictate of 20 years of age to 18.



Let me attempt to simplify it.

The NSDAP approached Marxism from National Socialism.

Many people make the mistake of trying to make that distinction you made regarding "collective ownership" of the means of production.
What they miss is that for BOTH collective Communism and National Socialism it is STATE CONTROL of those businesses and banks that is most important.
The German National Socialists didn't much care who held title as long as the Reich was in ultimate control, (and it most definitely was).

The Russian Soviets approached Marxism from Collective Communism which had it's genesis in Russia long before the start of their 1918 Bolshevik revolution, but that is another VERY long and complicated discussion that would have to start back in 1881 and include a discussion of a "family feud" between the Ulyanovs and the Romanoffs.

The point is that BOTH the German National Socialists and the Soviet Communists had their founding in Marx-Engels and thus my observation of the IRONY

Additionally, Antifa has never lost it's Marxist / Communist heritage. If you look at many of the images taken of them at "protests" ( street brawls), you can frequently see them proudly waving Communist Chinese or old Soviet flags alongside their Antifa emblem that was created at the 1922 COMINTERN when they were founded.

If you want even MORE irony, consider the fact that the German National Socialists used the American Southern Demorat's "Jim Crow" laws as the model for their anti-Jew laws with the exception that the Nazi's considered the Southern Demorat's "one drop of blood" rule too extreme!

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-01-2021).]

sourmash DEC 31, 10:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


Let me attempt to simplify it.

The NSDAP approached Marxism from National Socialism.
Many people make the mistake of trying to make that distinction you made regarding "collective ownership" of the means of production.
What they miss is that for BOTH collective Communism and National Socialism it is STATE CONTROL of those businesses and banks that is most important.
The German National Socialists didn't much care who held title as long as the Reich was in ultimate control, (and it most definitely was).

The Russian Soviets approached Marxism from collective Communism which had it's genesis in Russia long before the start of their 1918 Bolshevik revolution, but that is another VERY long and complicated discussion that would have to start back in 1881 and include a discussion of a "family feud" between the Leonovs and the Romanoffs.

The point is that BOTH the German National Socialists and the Soviet Communists had their founding in Marx-Engels and thus my observation of the IRONY

If you want even MORE irony, consider the fact that the German National Socialists used the American Southern Demorat's "Jim Crow" laws as the model for their anti-Jew laws with the exception that the Nazi's considered the Southern Demorat's "one drop of blood" rule too extreme!



We're getting to see a version of National Socialism today. Germany's attempt didn't last long. But China...they're on a rocket ship.
In my post yesterday, probably in another topic, I shared about a how China has moved toward National Socialism in that they don't care so much about who is producing the goods, as long as they're holding the controls.

Soviet communism is what all of us of our age/era think communism is. The Chinese have adapted into something different and don't have to overthrow other nations. They just need to sell goods to other nations and stay in power over their own. How long have they been at this? Thirty years in earnest? And by 2025-28 they're set to become the premier economy. With their population a domestic economy will go farther than ours can. But the US will start a war with them like England did with Germany.

The One Drop rule is total tard-dom and has supported today's claims of choosing your gender.
MidEngineManiac DEC 31, 10:16 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:


The One Drop rule is total tard-dom and has supported today's claims of choosing your gender.



OK...

I self-identify as an F-86 Fighter Jet that runs on moonshine. Now fuel me up.
randye DEC 31, 10:31 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

In my post yesterday, probably in another topic, I shared about a how China has moved toward National Socialism in that they don't care so much about who is producing the goods, as long as they're holding the controls.





They sure as Marxian Hell didn't start that way.

China got a late start with Marxism compared to Russia and Germany but they followed their own unique and ultimately far more brutal form of MAOIST Communism, (wave that "little red book") rather than Russia's Leninist / Stalinist model.

That brutality, death and continual deprivation ultimately forced China to oust the Maoists and reform to what they are today but don't make the mistake of thinking that they are somehow "National Socialists" now. They aren't and never will be and their recent actions in Hong Kong, their moves into Africa, Cuba and South America and their continuing claim to Taiwan prove that.

They are as intent on world communism as the Soviets were but they approach it from a very Chinese / Neo-Maoist way.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-31-2020).]