|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
You guys arguing about the race discourse should go read society must be defended, very interesting on this topic
|
On November 23 2014 08:39 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 08:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I tend to look more at party manifestos and leader interviews; German campaign posters are singularly, mind-numbingly awful, regardless of party. I will say though that the AfD is very careful to advertise the fact that their policy suggestions are based on foreign examples. It may merely be a symptom of their leaderships' academic backgrounds, but could be a conscious attempt to pre-empt the accusation that there is anything radical or weird about their policy prescriptions. UKIP does this as well: they want an "Australian-style" immigration system, or a "Swiss style" trading relationship with the EU. doesnt matter what the leadership of the AfD wants when big parts of their base membership is brown dirt
as much as I hate the AfD, it sadly seems that whoever is in charge of their PR should just get fired because of piss poor wording:
Alternative for Germany party organisers have been sending out the message that they are not trying to attract right-wing populists or radicals.[60] The AfD check applicants for membership to exclude far-right and former National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) members who support the anti-Euro policy (as other mainstream German political parties do).[60][61][70]
[...]
An investigation conducted by the internet social analytic company Linkfluence showed little to no similarities in Facebook likes of AfD followers and those of the NPD supporter base.[75] AfD members interests tended towards euroscepticism and direct democracy, while NPD supporters showed interests in anti-islamification, right-wing rock bands and the German military.[75] An evaluation between the hyperlinks included on AFD local party websites also showed few similarities, with the company's German chief-executive stating "The AfD supporter base and the right-wing extremist scene are digitally very far removed from one another"[75] The analysis did point to AfD members favouring links with right-wing populist reactionary conservative content.[75] The AfD's desire to break consensus-based politics and oppose political correctness as undermining freedom of speech, does lend it kudos as a legitimate mouthpiece for right-wing populism among some of the party membership and on regional AfD websites, which contrasts with the intellectual character of the party hierarchy.[75]
Their stance on immigration, iirc, is that they like the Canadian point system, which is why they emphasised the "rule" part about it.
Really the only thing the party has is the anti-Euro stance, which happens to be a stance right extremists agree on. Everything else on their agenda is just whatever randomly picked up from other countries that sounds good to them I guess?
|
pretty much yea, they grew with the anti-EU stuff and the dissatisfaction in the general population about the bailouts for states like greece and spain and in the process picked up far right elements that latched onto them because of their fast rising popularity. Which in turn coloured the rest of their political stances.
|
On November 23 2014 08:56 Skilledblob wrote:
pretty much yea, they grew with the anti-EU stuff and the dissatisfaction in the general population about the bailouts for states like greece and spain and in the process picked up far right elements that latched onto them because of their fast rising popularity. Which in turn coloured the rest of their political stances.
yeah. When I look at it I just imagine it being a blank party that has literally nothing but that anti-Euro stance at first, right extremists look at it, agree with it and unlike with other parties there's no big "oh I agree with their euro-stance but I absolutely don't like THIS stance on topic XYZ" simply because there was nothing lol
Though as far as I can see they're actually trying to keep their base clean
|
On November 23 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 08:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 23 2014 07:38 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 05:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 22 2014 09:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 09:00 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 08:40 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either). how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s? Because the national socialism was based on the very germanic idea of the race (altho a french built it, but with a cultural intent, see Levi strauss Race and history), that we french never really believed in. The nationalism in french is mostly a cultural nationalism that goes with intolerance towards non national cultural practice and not necessarily intolerance towards a different "blood". The national front represent a (violent) reject of the multiculturalist ideology and the valorisation of ethnical diversity, supported by both the PS and the UMP in the last decade. So just to be clear, the reason you dont want anyone calling them national socialist because you are worried that the distinction between genetic and cultural supremacy will confuse the issue? No because that's two completly different issue. There is a deeply universal project at the core of french values that is not necessarily racist (the enlightment, the declaration of the human right). That this project might lead to intolerance toward difference is another matter, but it's still a unifying project to begin with. A racist perspective on nation will always exclude, it's different. Jus soli and jus sanguini are different to me. The FN is always playing with the line, between the blood and the soil, the race and the culture, but I have never heard them really use a racist discourse - it's not the arabic populations that are unable to integrate our society to them, but it's the islamic culture, and overall the communautarism, that pose a problem in their mind. The more one thinks about the matter, the more one is unsatisfied with such an explanation because 19th century German nationalism was too, fundamentally more cultural than biological, and it was even more ethical than it was cultural. (I think a better distinction is to say that French universalism is more political, and German universalism more ethical.) When German idealists from Richard Wagner to Wilhelm Marr to Otto Weiniger spoke of "German culture", "German art", or "Jewish culture" or "Jewish art" as their categorical antitheses a century ago, they meant something more than qualities which were only incidentally characterised by certain nations. If anything, their universalism was more radical in spite of the cultural shorthands in which they garbed their thoughts. Analysing this complex thing isn't within the province of this forum, but I would recommend to anyone interested in the distinctions between French and German political thought a long-winded book by Klaus Epstein: The Genesis of German Conservatism, in which he traces where French and German political thought originally diverged in their respective receptions of the enlightenment. The other matter which obscures the issue is the modern man's sophomoric view of Nazi political ideology, and his tendency to reduce it to a kind of materialistic social darwinism. They then convert their simplifications about Nazism into generalisations about German nationalism as a whole. This is deeply problematic, all the moreso because many modern Germans are inclined to think this way as well. That's the kind of answers I'm bored with really. In Rwanda, the belgium used the number of cows and the height of people to define if they were hutu or tutsi on their id card. In nazi germany, the german discussed in length, and created protocoles, to define the % of blood needed to be considered pure or impure. France's assimilation is different, and altho I'm willing to go as far as to say that there is a cultural racism in our internationalism, saying that the declaration of the human right and our colonialism (because the two are linked) equal or even is remotly close to nazi germany is just plain stupid. But yeah, when the youth is fed on a certain discourse of the 2nd WW history's I guess nothing cannot be discussed without this constant relation and discussion on the shoah. The "objective, scientific" view of X is another facet of German intellectual history, but it is only a part of it. All kinds of foreigners, from Mme. de Stahl to Stalin, have remarked on this contradiction of German character; that mixture of inner idealism and outer conformity. Even the Nuremberg Race Laws emanated this compound of objective and subjective beliefs. Whereas the race was fubdamentally calculated on the basis grandpaternal lineage, in mixed cases there were subjective criteria such as cultural, religious and marital affiliations, which defined your "Mischling" status. Hitler himself towards the end of his life said that the biological view of race was nonsense. As a whole, Nazis were more racial idealists than racial materialists, but that is another matter. Secondly, I was not attempting to draw an equivalency between French nationalism and German nationalism. What I was expressing was a dissatisfaction with a certain formulation of those differences. The German nationalists' ideal of man was not for export in the same way as French cosmopolitan nationalism was, but the differences are not so simple as saying that one was racial and the other cultural. Yes it's not so simple, like everything historical. Of course there is a cultural aspect to german racism, but it doesn't change the fact that nationalism in germany has always gone hand in hand with a certain vision of blood, pure or impure, and the role of this blood in the definition of the nation, while France was not. The whole debate about nazism is irrelevant to what is happening in france, and that's it. Also, the cultural and the racist aspect of nazi doctrine are not two side of the same coin : the subjective part is a necessity of practice due to the incapacity of the racial concept to completly englobe all specific situations. But the culture of the aryan population was not the reason as to why the aryan were superior, but was viewed as an expression of that inherent (and natural) superiority. It's just completly different and the discussion has no reason to exist really.
I have to disagree on one fundamental point: that Nazi "Aryanism" possessed no secondary causes. First of all, the neo-pagan Aryan mythology in Nazi culture was only one side of Nazi ideology. It is too much to call it "fringe", because it was promoted publicly by strong proponents within the Nazi regime, such as Himmler and Rosenberg, but it is also too much to say that this was the fundamental component of Nazi ideology. Just look at how Nazi architecture was heavily neoclassical and ignored the gothic, or how the Nazi leadership mocked their more radical comrades' attempts to fund expensive archeological surveys in an attempt to prove the superiority of proto-German culture to ancient Mediterranean civilisation. There remains after all these years the question of what "Aryan" in common Nazi parlance even meant, because they would use it with different connotations. Sometimes it means 'Germanic", but in a broader context it was an ideological placeholder for a national culture untainted by semitic influence. When Hitler for example called his Japanese allies "honorary Aryans," he was not merely saying so for sake of political expediency; he admired the way in which Japanese shinto culture reflected his own ideals.
Whatever the ambiguous meaning of "Aryan", to be an Aryan was not an assertion superiority merely for its own sake. There is no time or space here to even try to examine what it really asserted, but I will say only this. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow.
|
On November 23 2014 08:58 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 08:56 Skilledblob wrote:
pretty much yea, they grew with the anti-EU stuff and the dissatisfaction in the general population about the bailouts for states like greece and spain and in the process picked up far right elements that latched onto them because of their fast rising popularity. Which in turn coloured the rest of their political stances. yeah. When I look at it I just imagine it being a blank party that has literally nothing but that anti-Euro stance at first, right extremists look at it, agree with it and unlike with other parties there's no big "oh I agree with their euro-stance but I absolutely don't like THIS stance on topic XYZ" simply because there was nothing lol Though as far as I can see they're actually trying to keep their base clean
i am just looking forward to more Haftbefehl on the radio thanks to the german speaking quota
|
On November 23 2014 09:03 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 08:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 23 2014 07:38 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 05:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 22 2014 09:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 09:00 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 08:40 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either). how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s? Because the national socialism was based on the very germanic idea of the race (altho a french built it, but with a cultural intent, see Levi strauss Race and history), that we french never really believed in. The nationalism in french is mostly a cultural nationalism that goes with intolerance towards non national cultural practice and not necessarily intolerance towards a different "blood". The national front represent a (violent) reject of the multiculturalist ideology and the valorisation of ethnical diversity, supported by both the PS and the UMP in the last decade. So just to be clear, the reason you dont want anyone calling them national socialist because you are worried that the distinction between genetic and cultural supremacy will confuse the issue? No because that's two completly different issue. There is a deeply universal project at the core of french values that is not necessarily racist (the enlightment, the declaration of the human right). That this project might lead to intolerance toward difference is another matter, but it's still a unifying project to begin with. A racist perspective on nation will always exclude, it's different. Jus soli and jus sanguini are different to me. The FN is always playing with the line, between the blood and the soil, the race and the culture, but I have never heard them really use a racist discourse - it's not the arabic populations that are unable to integrate our society to them, but it's the islamic culture, and overall the communautarism, that pose a problem in their mind. The more one thinks about the matter, the more one is unsatisfied with such an explanation because 19th century German nationalism was too, fundamentally more cultural than biological, and it was even more ethical than it was cultural. (I think a better distinction is to say that French universalism is more political, and German universalism more ethical.) When German idealists from Richard Wagner to Wilhelm Marr to Otto Weiniger spoke of "German culture", "German art", or "Jewish culture" or "Jewish art" as their categorical antitheses a century ago, they meant something more than qualities which were only incidentally characterised by certain nations. If anything, their universalism was more radical in spite of the cultural shorthands in which they garbed their thoughts. Analysing this complex thing isn't within the province of this forum, but I would recommend to anyone interested in the distinctions between French and German political thought a long-winded book by Klaus Epstein: The Genesis of German Conservatism, in which he traces where French and German political thought originally diverged in their respective receptions of the enlightenment. The other matter which obscures the issue is the modern man's sophomoric view of Nazi political ideology, and his tendency to reduce it to a kind of materialistic social darwinism. They then convert their simplifications about Nazism into generalisations about German nationalism as a whole. This is deeply problematic, all the moreso because many modern Germans are inclined to think this way as well. That's the kind of answers I'm bored with really. In Rwanda, the belgium used the number of cows and the height of people to define if they were hutu or tutsi on their id card. In nazi germany, the german discussed in length, and created protocoles, to define the % of blood needed to be considered pure or impure. France's assimilation is different, and altho I'm willing to go as far as to say that there is a cultural racism in our internationalism, saying that the declaration of the human right and our colonialism (because the two are linked) equal or even is remotly close to nazi germany is just plain stupid. But yeah, when the youth is fed on a certain discourse of the 2nd WW history's I guess nothing cannot be discussed without this constant relation and discussion on the shoah. The "objective, scientific" view of X is another facet of German intellectual history, but it is only a part of it. All kinds of foreigners, from Mme. de Stahl to Stalin, have remarked on this contradiction of German character; that mixture of inner idealism and outer conformity. Even the Nuremberg Race Laws emanated this compound of objective and subjective beliefs. Whereas the race was fubdamentally calculated on the basis grandpaternal lineage, in mixed cases there were subjective criteria such as cultural, religious and marital affiliations, which defined your "Mischling" status. Hitler himself towards the end of his life said that the biological view of race was nonsense. As a whole, Nazis were more racial idealists than racial materialists, but that is another matter. Secondly, I was not attempting to draw an equivalency between French nationalism and German nationalism. What I was expressing was a dissatisfaction with a certain formulation of those differences. The German nationalists' ideal of man was not for export in the same way as French cosmopolitan nationalism was, but the differences are not so simple as saying that one was racial and the other cultural. Yes it's not so simple, like everything historical. Of course there is a cultural aspect to german racism, but it doesn't change the fact that nationalism in germany has always gone hand in hand with a certain vision of blood, pure or impure, and the role of this blood in the definition of the nation, while France was not. The whole debate about nazism is irrelevant to what is happening in france, and that's it. Also, the cultural and the racist aspect of nazi doctrine are not two side of the same coin : the subjective part is a necessity of practice due to the incapacity of the racial concept to completly englobe all specific situations. But the culture of the aryan population was not the reason as to why the aryan were superior, but was viewed as an expression of that inherent (and natural) superiority. It's just completly different and the discussion has no reason to exist really. I have to disagree on one fundamental point: that Nazi "Aryanism" possessed no secondary causes. First of all, the neo-pagan Aryan mythology in Nazi culture was only one side of Nazi ideology. It is too much to call it "fringe", because it was promoted publicly by strong proponents within the Nazi regime, such as Himmler and Rosenberg, but it is also too much to say that this was the fundamental component of Nazi ideology. Just look at how Nazi architecture was heavily neoclassical and ignored the gothic, or how the Nazi leadership mocked their more radical comrades' attempts to fund expensive archeological surveys in an attempt to prove the superiority of proto-German culture to ancient Mediterranean civilisation. There remains after all these years the question of what "Aryan" in common Nazi parlance even meant, because they would use it with different connotations. Sometimes it means 'Germanic", but in a broader context it was an ideological placeholder for a national culture untainted by semitic influence. When Hitler for example called his Japanese allies "honorary Aryans," he was not merely saying so for sake of political expediency; he admired the way in which Japanese shinto culture reflected his own ideals. Whatever the ambiguous meaning of "Aryan", to be an Aryan was not an assertion superiority merely for its own sake. There is no time or space here to even try to examine what it really asserted, but I will say only this. To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow.
de Gobineau believed that there were three basic races – white, yellow and black – and that everything else was caused by race miscegenation, which de Gobineau argued was the cause of chaos. The "master race", according to de Gobineau, were the Northern European "Aryans", who had remained "racially pure". Southern Europeans (to include Spaniards and Southern Frenchmen), Eastern Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Iranians, Central Asians, Indians, he all considered racially mixed, degenerated through the miscegenation, and thus less than ideal.
I don't even know what you are talking about. Aryan was used exactly for that....
If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. Maybe education and philosophy are not the alpha and omega of morality, but tend to sacrifice reality for fetichized concepts - like "aryan". The good growing the world is, for a big part, due to completly anhistorical acts, to people who faithfully lead an hidden life and who "sleeps in tombs that nobody visit".
|
If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to.
I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany.
|
On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany.
It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were "one of the most criminal". Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist.
You guys are awesome.
The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the morality of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very influenced by the nazi ideology (see Heidegger and his black notebooks ?).
The biggest "success" of nazi germany is that it created generations of people that cannot think and understand the world around them without feeling the urge to compare it to the event of WW2. See Israel, see the FN, see the Europe, see ISIS, see Hamas, etc.
|
I'm really curious: How in the world did you arrive at the conclusion that Nazi Germany was the most educated and philosophically inclined nation? I think the burning of books should exclude any such labels being attached to you...
|
On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology.
I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old.
Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons.
Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that).
The biggest "success" of nazi germany is that it created generations of people that cannot think and understand the world around them without feeling the urge to compare it to the event of WW2. See Israel, see the FN, see the Europe, see ISIS, see Hamas, etc.
Not sure why you edit more blabbering in, this has nothing to do with what i said. Not even remotely. Apart from it being wrong again.
|
On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that).
Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes.
And you don't know much about the FN.
Not sure why you edit more blabbering in, this has nothing to do with what i said. Not even remotely. Apart from it being wrong again.
Not sure why you talk then because that was the subject of the discussion to begin with.
|
On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN.
Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it?
|
On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it?
Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are.
|
On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are.
Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room?
Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us.
|
On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us.
Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me.
|
On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me.
To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow.
If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol.
Here. Read.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html
|
On November 23 2014 21:20 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 21:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 21:02 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:58 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:57 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:49 m4ini wrote:On November 23 2014 20:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2014 20:28 m4ini wrote:If you think nazi germany was "the most educated and philosophically inclined population of the world", then you must also agree it was one of the most criminal population the world ever gave life to. I'm not entirely sure by what logic that is supposed to work. Apart from your obvious aversion against germany. It's my aversion against germany to say that nazi were one of the most criminal. Yeah it's germanophobia to say that nazi germany is bad, but it's not francophobia to say that the FN is national socialist and facist. You guys are awesome. The logic was pretty simple : education and philosophy does not necessarily lead to morally good behaviors, so the fact that germany was educated is irrelevant to the flaw of nazism. Higher up and intellectuals were, too, very touched by the nazi ideology. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, i'm a single person who questioned an "argument" you made. Guess it's too much to ask for people to not act like twelve years old. Nobody disagrees that nazis were criminal. That's not what you said though. You said criminal population, not "nazis". If you like it or not, there's a huge difference, which you neglect for populistic reasons. Oh, and yeah, the FN is pretty national socialist (fascism comes with that). Yeah the nazis were just a handful sorry I should have said "the sect" that somewhat controlled germany and its people, lead war and industrially killed jews, homosexuals and tsiganes. And you don't know much about the FN. Same can be said about you and nazi germany, but that doesn't stop you from arguing, does it? Can you prove me that I don't know much about nazi germany ? Because your comments on FN just show how ignorant you are. Wait, did you prove now that the whole population of germany in nazitimes was criminal? Why am i supposed to bring "evidence" of your lack of knowledge (which the argument brings itself btw), but you go ahead and throw random stuff in the room? Doesn't work that way, mate. Especially not the "ignorant" thing, which describes either none or the two of us. Yeah because saying nazi germany's population was one of the most criminal necessarily means that all germans were nazi and criminal ? Because of vast majority of the population did not support Hitler and its project ? "Today Hitler Is All of Germany" was not written by me. Show nested quote + To believe so would mean you believe that fundamentally, a nation of 80 million people, who were the most educated and philosophically inclined population in the world, for 12 years, easily and enthusiastically subscribed to a world view which was not only a dead end, but preposterously shallow. If you answer to an argument that talks about all the germans, then yes. If i disagree with Moltkes statement or not doesn't even matter (i do, for your information). And no. 13 millions voted NSDAP. Out of 80 millions. To state a fricking newspaper headline now to support/as evidence for your argument, lol. Here. Read. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html
And 13 millions people is not a population ? It's not vast support ?
lol
|
m4ini, stop interrupting the interesting discussion with your idiocy.
if you can't read english, be quiet, maybe you'll learn some.
one of the most.
|
it's m4ini, he's been a troll on this forum for a long time now 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
