Stochastic Terrorism and Edgelord Humour

[jimbob]

Have YOU read Mein Kampf? Do you have any pull quotes from that book or any of these sources that support your understanding of Nazi ideology? If the murder of millions is as much a part of Nazi ideology as you say it is, it shouldn't be too difficult to find explicit references. Or references to passages that you believe can be interpreted as calling for mass murder.

Really?

The Holocaust happened. There was no point to it, apart from fulfilling Nazi ideology. Hitler was pretty clear, Nazi propaganda was clear.

Really?

The Holocaust happened.

No duh!

There was no point to it, apart from fulfilling Nazi ideology.

Just saying that there was no point to the holocaust apart from fulfilling Nazi ideology doesn't answer the question. I know you believe this but I want to know why.

But Hitler was pretty clear, Nazi propaganda was clear.

Where do you find this clarity?

Google is your friend. This is literally covered at primary school in the UK at the moment, and was covered in history when I was at school too.

If you can't be bothered to google "nazi antisemetic propaganda" then there is always wikipedia:

The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring was introduced on 14 July 1933, and various propaganda was used to target the disabled.[21] A special euthanasia program, called Aktion T4 began in 1939, related propaganda arguments were based on the books, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens ("Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living"), written by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche and the book Human Heredity Theory and Racial Hygiene, written by Eugen Fischer, Erwin Baur and Fritz Lenz.[22]

For the hard of thinking, "involuntary euthanasia" is a euphemism for murder.

ETA: Given your line of questioning, it was reasonable to ask whether you do actually deny the Holocaust, and that 6-million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.​

I hadn't actually thought to see the argument that the Nazis were just misunderstood hippies who inadvertently murdered millions of people, not just Jews.

Probably because that's kind of a stupid argument. Hippies?

It was a mild exaggeration, but not even a strawman. Questioning whether the Nazis promulgated violent propaganda against Jews and others is a *really* stupid line of "just asking questions".

Another example of internet propaganda by the far right would be the attempt to frame the Parkland shooting victims as crisis actors. That is also stupid, but I believe I have seen people on this board promote that view.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

​

Google is your friend. This is literally covered at primary school in the UK at the moment, and was covered in history when I was at school too.

If you can't be bothered to google "nazi antisemetic propaganda" then there is always wikipedia:​

Googling "nazi antisemitic propaganda" finds evidence that Nazi didn't like Jews. It doesn't find evidence that murder of millions of my fellow citizens is part and parcel of the nazi ideology. I think the difficulty you and many others are having is, first of all, you hear "nazi" and the thinking centers of your brain turns off and your left running on pure emotion. You also assume that 'results' are evidence of 'intent'. And you think of "genocide" and "murder" as interchangeable.

The first one is something that I cannot overcome. Facts cannot change an opinion that is arrived at through pure feelings. As to the second, you cannot look at what happened and assume it was intentional or even inevitable. The Spanish conquest of Mexico resulted in the extermination of the Aztec civilization. Was that the plan all along? Is a Mexican who openly expresses pride in his heritage mean that he is advocating for the murder of millions of his fellow citizens? No, his forefathers came to conquer, enslave, and plunder. They didn't come to murder and their ideology didn't require it but it happened.

The Nazi ideology required building an ethnically pure German state. That meant getting rid of the Jews (and other people considered ethnically impure) and restricting the full rights of citizenship to only the German people. For this to happen, an ethnic cleansing had to be implemented. All the sources that have been cited for me as evidence that nazi ideology meant the murder of millions of my fellow citizens are--at best--evidence of this ethnic cleansing.

If you think that an ideology that requires an ethnically pure State and implements an ethnic cleansing to achieve it is no different than an ideology that will murder millions of my fellow citizens, what do you say about Israel? It's goal is a homeland for the Jewish people. It is cleansing the land of Israel of the non-Jewish Palestinians. It severely restricts the rights of non-Jews, doesn't allow gentiles to marry Jews, continues to seize non-Jewish land for settlements, etc. Many Palestinians have been murdered in pursuit of the Zionist dream. But is murder part and parcel of Zionist ideology? Is it possible to believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state without wanting to murder millions of my fellow citizens?

This speaks to the difference between "murder" and "genocide" and why the words aren't interchangeable. An ethnic cleansing is defined as genocide. So supporting nazism does mean you advocate genocide. Supporting zionism also means that you advocate genocide. It is true that an ethnic cleansing can be achieved by murdering everybody who doesn't fit into a specific ethnicity but it can also be achieved by making life so difficult that people choose to leave.

For the hard of thinking, "involuntary euthanasia" is a euphemism for murder.

Eugenics was big in Nazi Germany. It was also pretty big in the United States. Books promoting "involuntary euthanasia" "involuntary sterilization" selective breeding of humans, etc. were written in English as well as German. This doesnt' prove that supporting American ideals is tantamount to advocating for the murder of millions of my fellow citizens.

ETA: Given your line of questioning, it was reasonable to ask whether you do actually deny the Holocaust, and that 6-million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.

It's only reasonable if emotion overrides your study of nazis. I'm a functionalist (many, maybe most, historians are today). Not even the intentionalists say that makes me a denier.

It was a mild exaggeration, but not even a strawman. Questioning whether the Nazis promulgated violent propaganda against Jews and others is a *really* stupid line of "just asking questions".

It wasn't a strawman. But saying that nazis promulgating propaganda against the jews isn't evidence that murder of millions of my fellow citizens is part and parcel with nazi ideology isn't the same as saying that the nazis were misunderstood hippies. What's wrong with "just asking questions"?

Another example of internet propaganda by the far right would be the attempt to frame the Parkland shooting victims as crisis actors. That is also stupid, but I believe I have seen people on this board promote that view.

Another example of internet propaganda by the far left would be attempting to frame the student outrage after the shooting as an organic grassroots movement that was built by the kids themselves without any outside support is even more ridiculous. But lots of people believe that and still believe it. Many more don't even think about it at all.

 

[jimbob]

Googling "nazi antisemitic propaganda" finds evidence that Nazi didn't like Jews. It doesn't find evidence that murder of millions of my fellow citizens is part and parcel of the nazi ideology. I think the difficulty you and many others are having is, first of all, you hear "nazi" and the thinking centers of your brain turns off and your left running on pure emotion. You also assume that 'results' are evidence of 'intent'. And you think of "genocide" and "murder" as interchangeable.

The first one is something that I cannot overcome. Facts cannot change an opinion that is arrived at through pure feelings. As to the second, you cannot look at what happened and assume it was intentional or even inevitable. The Spanish conquest of Mexico resulted in the extermination of the Aztec civilization. Was that the plan all along? Is a Mexican who openly expresses pride in his heritage mean that he is advocating for the murder of millions of his fellow citizens? No, his forefathers came to conquer, enslave, and plunder. They didn't come to murder and their ideology didn't require it but it happened.

The Nazi ideology required building an ethnically pure German state. That meant getting rid of the Jews (and other people considered ethnically impure) and restricting the full rights of citizenship to only the German people. For this to happen, an ethnic cleansing had to be implemented. All the sources that have been cited for me as evidence that nazi ideology meant the murder of millions of my fellow citizens are--at best--evidence of this ethnic cleansing.

If you think that an ideology that requires an ethnically pure State and implements an ethnic cleansing to achieve it is no different than an ideology that will murder millions of my fellow citizens, what do you say about Israel? It's goal is a homeland for the Jewish people. It is cleansing the land of Israel of the non-Jewish Palestinians. It severely restricts the rights of non-Jews, doesn't allow gentiles to marry Jews, continues to seize non-Jewish land for settlements, etc. Many Palestinians have been murdered in pursuit of the Zionist dream. But is murder part and parcel of Zionist ideology? Is it possible to believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state without wanting to murder millions of my fellow citizens?

This speaks to the difference between "murder" and "genocide" and why the words aren't interchangeable. An ethnic cleansing is defined as genocide. So supporting nazism does mean you advocate genocide. Supporting zionism also means that you advocate genocide. It is true that an ethnic cleansing can be achieved by murdering everybody who doesn't fit into a specific ethnicity but it can also be achieved by making life so difficult that people choose to leave.


Eugenics was big in Nazi Germany. It was also pretty big in the United States. Books promoting "involuntary euthanasia" "involuntary sterilization" selective breeding of humans, etc. were written in English as well as German. This doesnt' prove that supporting American ideals is tantamount to advocating for the murder of millions of my fellow citizens.


It's only reasonable if emotion overrides your study of nazis. I'm a functionalist (many, maybe most, historians are today). Not even the intentionalists say that makes me a denier.


It wasn't a strawman. But saying that nazis promulgating propaganda against the jews isn't evidence that murder of millions of my fellow citizens is part and parcel with nazi ideology isn't the same as saying that the nazis were misunderstood hippies. What's wrong with "just asking questions"?


Another example of internet propaganda by the far left would be attempting to frame the student outrage after the shooting as an organic grassroots movement that was built by the kids themselves without any outside support is even more ridiculous. But lots of people believe that and still believe it. Many more don't even think about it at all.

Lets get back to your original comment:

No, I don't remember. I wasn't born yet. I don't even remember the Kennedy assassination.

In the grand scheme of things, the holocaust was one of many genocides that have been perpetrated throughout history. The fact that it happened doesn't prove that the nazi ideology explicitly calls for the genocidal murder of millions of my fellow citizens. I have read the Platform of the National-Sopcialist German Workers' Party and the Twelve Theses and don't see any explicit calls for the death of any particular ethnic, racial, or religious group of people as such. I haven't read Mein Kampf, The Myth of the Twentieth Century or This Time the World any other book that promotes the nazi ideology. So my knowledge is incomplete. I'm not saying that the holocaust was not intentional or that the nazis are not responsible for the holocaust. But the holocaust isn't proof that nazi ideology explicitly calls for the murder of millions of my fellow citizens any more than the holodomor is proof that mass murder is part and parcel of the socialist ideology.

Anyone who hasn't read at least Mein Kampf has no business trying to dictate to others what Nazi ideology "actually standards for". If someone feels they want to talk authoritatively on the subject, then there's also a myriad of other foundational writings that need to be considered, particularly those of Jakob Graf, Eugen Fischer, Hans F. K. Günther, and of course the Nazi's inner circle (Goebbels, Goering, Rosenberg, Himmler, etc.). And, of course, they should research the volkisch movements that spawned the Nazi party.
Anyone who says that the Holocaust wasn't presaged in their writings is either profoundly ignorant, or a flat-out denialist.

Have YOU read Mein Kampf? Do you have any pull quotes from that book or any of these sources that support your understanding of Nazi ideology? If the murder of millions is as much a part of Nazi ideology as you say it is, it shouldn't be too difficult to find explicit references. Or references to passages that you believe can be interpreted as calling for mass murder.

You asked for why people say that Nazism is explicitly violent.

Nazi propaganda called for killing of Jews even before the war. That is explicitly violent. Even more so, Nazis killed millions of Jews, diverting scarce resources to do this. That is the what is attractive to modern Nazis. Face it, the rest of their ideology is pretty incoherent, except for "death to those we consider inferior".

Communism might have caused many deaths, particularly Stalinism, but the basic ideology of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is *not* promoting murder.

In practice, Communism is unworkable and would tend to lead to violent dictatorship, but in terms of its own theory, it is aiming to make an equitable world where everyone has enough. Nazism, however, in terms of its own theory, wants to make a world of death.


Basically this:

 

[NWO Sentryman]

And people forget that Weimar Germany was tailor made for someone like Hitler to come along sooner or later:

1) Paramilitary violence due to weak state monopoly on force? check.
2) Central government having near-zero legitimacy? Check
3) Constant governmental paralysis? Check.
4) Strong sense of national humiliation? Check.
5) Disillusioned war veterans and black market awash with illegal weapons? Check.
6) Economic system being a ponzi scheme waiting to come crashing down at any moment? Check.

ETA: Ultimately, Liberalism and political correctness are just lip service for good times, "We have yummy yummy ethnic food thanks to immigrants, Diversity is our Strength" did not stop the Lib Dems from supporting Theresa May's bigoted policies when she was home secretary. And again, when things turn sour, Liberal ideals of equality get chucked out the window. If Political Correctness and Liberalism were anything other than fair weather platitudes, the Lib Dems would have demanded May Resign for the GO HOME vans.

Even in the Nice Wise and Multicultural Europe that American progressives talk about, where there are hate speech laws, you have Ultranationalist parties ascendant, and liberal parties have lost substantial ground. Or how the Multicultural and Diverse Syria collapsed into bloody and violent civil war between the numerous ethnic and religious groups.

 

[luchog]

You asked for why people say that Nazism is explicitly violent.

Nazi propaganda called for killing of Jews even before the war. That is explicitly violent. Even more so, Nazis killed millions of Jews, diverting scarce resources to do this. That is the what is attractive to modern Nazis. Face it, the rest of their ideology is pretty incoherent, except for "death to those we consider inferior".

One thing commonly ignored in the right-wing whataboutism for that time is that eugenics was never official federal government policy in the US. It was a minority belief restricted to academics funded buy private individuals and corporations, and was implemented only in a small way by a number of state governments. The only eugenics-inspired federal government policies were limited to immigration restrictions, and the Supreme Court upholding the states' rights to implement such polices.

Further, eugenics in the US did not involve mass murder as it did in Nazi Germany; but rather manifested in the form of forced sterilization, immigration restrictions, and privately-funded breeding programs. The closest the US came to the polices of the Nazis was a minuscule handful of doctors causing high death rates among "undesirable" patients by encouraging the spread of disease, or outright neglect. The "euthanasia" wing of the eugenics movement was extremely unpopular, even among other eugenicists.

The other key difference is that eugenics in the US was not based along strictly racial/ethnic lines the way that it was in Nazi Germany. Immigration programs were ethnicity-based, but all other programs in the US were based along class lines, and targeted primarily "defective" individuals -- that is, those with developmental disorders, mental illness (the biggest target), and the poor and underclass. Welfare recipients were among the most common targets of forced sterilization.

Eugenics programs were actually quite popular among African-American communities, where they were touted as a means of reducing poverty through reduction in overpopulation.

A more apt comparison to the Nazi regime was not eugenics, but the policy of Manifest Destiny. The policy was a contested one, and saw considerable opposition in the federal government despite being popular with the majority. To support Manifest Destiny at that time was to support the genocide and "ethnic cleansing" of the First Nations peoples; as the great push west involved, by policy, the displacement and mass-murder of large numbers of indigenous peoples, a policy that still affect them to this day.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

One thing commonly ignored in the right-wing whataboutism for that time is that eugenics was never official federal government policy in the US. It was a minority belief restricted to academics funded buy private individuals and corporations, and was implemented only in a small way by a number of state governments. The only eugenics-inspired federal government policies were limited to immigration restrictions, and the Supreme Court upholding the states' rights to implement such polices.

Further, eugenics in the US did not involve mass murder as it did in Nazi Germany; but rather manifested in the form of forced sterilization, immigration restrictions, and privately-funded breeding programs. The closest the US came to the polices of the Nazis was a minuscule handful of doctors causing high death rates among "undesirable" patients by encouraging the spread of disease, or outright neglect. The "euthanasia" wing of the eugenics movement was extremely unpopular, even among other eugenicists.

The other key difference is that eugenics in the US was not based along strictly racial/ethnic lines the way that it was in Nazi Germany. Immigration programs were ethnicity-based, but all other programs in the US were based along class lines, and targeted primarily "defective" individuals -- that is, those with developmental disorders, mental illness (the biggest target), and the poor and underclass. Welfare recipients were among the most common targets of forced sterilization.

Eugenics programs were actually quite popular among African-American communities, where they were touted as a means of reducing poverty through reduction in overpopulation.

A more apt comparison to the Nazi regime was not eugenics, but the policy of Manifest Destiny. The policy was a contested one, and saw considerable opposition in the federal government despite being popular with the majority. To support Manifest Destiny at that time was to support the genocide and "ethnic cleansing" of the First Nations peoples; as the great push west involved, by policy, the displacement and mass-murder of large numbers of indigenous peoples, a policy that still affect them to this day.

Except the Indigenous peoples were scattered remnants still reeling from the smallpox epidemics and conflicts with the previous Spanish/French/Mexican
governments. The idea that it was all vibrant virgin land where the natives were one with nature is... laughably naive. And ultimately, it was inevitable as the US industrialised and sought quite a bit of the breadbasket, and it was going to be a hard sell to a growing urban population (especially after the Civil War) that nomadic horsemen have a better claim to large swathes of land that could feed them. And even then, it was nothing like the German-Slavic tensions that had been a powder keg for centuries, which was arguably inflamed by the creation of the German state in 1871 and the collapse of Austria-Hungary after WW1 (And was only solved by mass ethnic cleansing AFTER ww2 and the abolition of the Prussian state).

What I am getting at is that the "We can all sit down and enjoy a variety of dinnerplates as equals!" has never been a thing and only was surface level after 1945. In Wise, Compassionate and Mature Europe, the moment a few refugees came along in 2014, guess who won out? In Civilised Australia, the Right won a major upset despite everything going against them, including the treatment of refugees in Manus Island. In America, Donald Trump won. In Brazil, once a bastion of Equality and Multiculturalism, a fascist was elected. India is heading towards Ultranationalism.

 

[luchog]

Except the Indigenous peoples were scattered remnants still reeling from the smallpox epidemics and conflicts with the previous Spanish/French/Mexican
governments.

Not all of them, there were still some large and vibrant communities in the north and northwest. The depredations of the Spanish and French were mostly limited to the south and southwest.

The idea that it was all vibrant virgin land where the natives were one with nature is... laughably naive.

Good thing that no one but you is claiming that, then.

And ultimately, it was inevitable as the US industrialised and sought quite a bit of the breadbasket, and it was going to be a hard sell to a growing urban population (especially after the Civil War) that nomadic horsemen have a better claim to large swathes of land that could feed them.

Oh, well, that makes it all right then I guess.

Really not seeing what your point here is, since it doesn't have much to do with the subject of this thread.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Not all of them, there were still some large and vibrant communities in the north and northwest. The depredations of the Spanish and French were mostly limited to the south and southwest.

Last I checked, Smallpox hammered them in badly, to the tune of 90% of all populations dying off as well as secondary diseases.

Good thing that no one but you is claiming that, then.

There are plenty who still adhere to the noble savage myth.

Oh, well, that makes it all right then I guess.

Really not seeing what your point here is, since it doesn't have much to do with the subject of this thread.

My point was that when it came to Native Americans after 1492, they were screwed no matter what. And it comes round to my main point, that Liberalism is only a fair weather ideal that people pay lip service to in good times, and when things turn sour, that's when the chuds emerge, As you are seeing from Duterte to Bolsonaro to Modi to Salvini. This is MUCH, MUCH more than Edgelord Humour.

But to re-rail, it doesn't help that left-wing/Liberal fiction these days is YA Cryfests.

 

[luchog]

Last I checked, Smallpox hammered them in badly, to the tune of 90% of all populations dying off as well as secondary diseases.

Which I'm sure you'll be able to provide citations for.

There are plenty who still adhere to the noble savage myth.

Care to show me where someone here has supported that myth, otherwise you're just dredging up straw men, and utterly irrelevant ones at that.

My point was that when it came to Native Americans after 1492, they were screwed no matter what.

So, no reason not to go out and slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands, and brutally herd the rest off to reservations the way that the US military and private citizens did then?

And it comes round to my main point, that Liberalism is only a fair weather ideal that people pay lip service to in good times, and when things turn sour, that's when the chuds emerge, As you are seeing from Duterte to Bolsonaro to Modi to Salvini. This is MUCH, MUCH more than Edgelord Humour.

Again, no real relevance to the topic of this thread, and you've done nothing but assert this without providing evidence.

But to re-rail, it doesn't help that left-wing/Liberal fiction these days is YA Cryfests.

There aren't enough eyeroll emoticons for how utterly wrong and irrelevant this is.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

1) the fact that smallpox wiped out large swathes of people in the Americas is not enough?

2) there is a whole wikipedia entry on this.

3) if you think that everybody was suddenly going to develop 21st century values and live in harmony in the 19th century, you are naive in extremis.

4) the fact that politics is being shaped by the likes of Bolsonaro far more than trudeau, as well as the lib dems signing off on the Tory governments more odious policies between 2010 and 2015 says it all. For all the lip service about diversity being a strength through dinnerplate variety, it doesn't really mean much in hard times.

5) the only reason alt right types are gaining ground in pop culture is that progressive alternatives are algorithmic and regurgitated in a human centipede of corporate focus groups which are gobbled up as being the most symbolic thing ever. Another thing that hasn't helped is mainstream entertainment attempting to cover up their problems by pink/rainbowwashing over them with some window dressing, only for lgbt and minorities to lose out as things come crashing down (like marvel comics with hydra cap)

 

[uke2se]

Liberalism is a "fair weather ideal"?

Sure, when times get tough, more people turn to authoritarian leadership, but that's because they are being sold easy answers to hard question - i.e, lies. Liberals don't normally do this. Things are allowed to be complex.

None of this means that people who espouse liberalism stop doing that when times get tough. It just means that stupid people are easily led towards fascism.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Liberalism is a "fair weather ideal"?

Sure, when times get tough, more people turn to authoritarian leadership, but that's because they are being sold easy answers to hard question - i.e, lies. Liberals don't normally do this. Things are allowed to be complex.

None of this means that people who espouse liberalism stop doing that when times get tough. It just means that stupid people are easily led towards fascism.

See the liberal democrats in the United kingdom. They got into coalition with the Tories in 2010 on the pledge that they would provide input, and proceeded to be yes men to every single nasty party policy that came up, from tuition fees to hostile environment, from bedroom tax to royal mail privatisation. Or for another example look at how macron mouthed all the liberal platitudes on the campaign trail but at his keynote g20 described African women as baby factories. Liberals will mouth platitudes of intelligence and how they enjoy a variety of dinnerplates, but when pressed, those platitudes do not match actions. If what you say is true, the lib dems would have walked out of the coalition the moment it clashed with their principles.

 

[luchog]

1) the fact that smallpox wiped out large swathes of people in the Americas is not enough?

Not enough to justify genocide and ethnic cleansing by US military and private citizens? No, I cannot see murdering and brutal forced relocation of peoples as in any way justified by the fact that a lot of them got sick and died, and I'm willing to bet that no one else with any real sense of humanity would either. The fact that you appear to says quite a lot about you, however.

You still haven't provided a citation.

2) there is a whole wikipedia entry on this.

Not seeing any links to anyone in this thread asserting the "noble savage" myth, that's still your pointless non-sequitur.

3) if you think that everybody was suddenly going to develop 21st century values and live in harmony in the 19th century, you are naive in extremis.

Those goalposts will give you a hernia if you keep moving them like that.

Care to explain how the genocide and ethnic cleansing was justified? You keep avoiding that, which makes me think you're tacitly supporting it.

4) the fact that politics is being shaped by the likes of Bolsonaro far more than trudeau, as well as the lib dems signing off on the Tory governments more odious policies between 2010 and 2015 says it all. For all the lip service about diversity being a strength through dinnerplate variety, it doesn't really mean much in hard times.

5) the only reason alt right types are gaining ground in pop culture is that progressive alternatives are algorithmic and regurgitated in a human centipede of corporate focus groups which are gobbled up as being the most symbolic thing ever. Another thing that hasn't helped is mainstream entertainment attempting to cover up their problems by pink/rainbowwashing over them with some window dressing, only for lgbt and minorities to lose out as things come crashing down (like marvel comics with hydra cap)

This is all just word-salad evasion and right-wing posturing. Utter nonsense.

See the liberal democrats in the United kingdom.

A handful of liberal politicians in one country being pragmatic and pandering does not adequately represent the vast majority of progressive voters in the US or UK, it just means that some politicians are more interested in their own power than in representing their constituency. Nothing new there.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

1) I'm just taking context into account. You had two fundamentally incompatible cultures - Nomadic pastoralism and a rapidly industrialising nation-state which was seeking agricultural land to feed its growing urban population. There was no good outcome for the Nomadic pastors, especially since they had suffered epidemics that weakened them substantially during this time. In the bigger picture, you had similarly violent campaigns in Latin America (Mexican industralisation was particularly brutal on the rural peasants), and then there was the Scramble for Africa. Conquest has always been a norm in human history, and the post-1945 emphasis on territorial integrity is an outlier.

2) Would this do?

3) And yet it's all true. Liberalism everywhere is on the retreat as economic and social tensions grow, suggesting strongly that it is largely a fair weather ideal.

 

[luchog]

1) I'm just taking context into account. You had two fundamentally incompatible cultures - Nomadic pastoralism and a rapidly industrialising nation-state which was seeking agricultural land to feed its growing urban population. There was no good outcome for the Nomadic pastors, especially since they had suffered epidemics that weakened them substantially during this time. In the bigger picture, you had similarly violent campaigns in Latin America (Mexican industralisation was particularly brutal on the rural peasants), and then there was the Scramble for Africa. Conquest has always been a norm in human history, and the post-1945 emphasis on territorial integrity is an outlier.

Sorry, unlike you I don't see that as adequate justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing, and I don't see that as absolving the US government for their brutal murder and oppression of indigenous peoples. The fact that you appear to is disturbing.

2) Would this do?

Not seeing any citations there to anyone in this thread supporting the noble savage mythology. Your ridiculous evasion is noted.

3) And yet it's all true. Liberalism everywhere is on the retreat as economic and social tensions grow, suggesting strongly that it is largely a fair weather ideal.

Again, just more right-wing posturing unsupported by facts. I'm done with you since you can't seem to actually address any of the points, and just respond with right-wing talking points and non-sequitur evasion.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Sorry, unlike you I don't see that as adequate justification for genocide and ethnic cleansing, and I don't see that as absolving the US government for their brutal murder and oppression of indigenous peoples. The fact that you appear to is disturbing.

Except that's what it was at the time. Conquest and Warfare have always been the norm, and to insist that industrialisation and nomadic pastoralism could have been reconcilable does not square up with the facts, especially as America (and Argentina and Brazil as well) were seeing booms in European migration and they headed out for land. To insist that America was some uniquely monstrous entity at a time when other powers in the Americas and in Europe were pursuing similar policies (Argentina, Mexico and Russia) as they industrialised does not square up. Context is key, and to insist that there was a way to do so with 2019 values is laughable.

Not seeing any citations there to anyone in this thread supporting the noble savage mythology. Your ridiculous evasion is noted.

Evasion noted.

Again, just more right-wing posturing unsupported by facts. I'm done with you since you can't seem to actually address any of the points, and just respond with right-wing talking points and non-sequitur evasion.

Except, the Liberal belief that the Moral Arc of the Universe eternally bent in their favour can and has come crashing down. It did so in 1914 with the First World War, it did so in 1929 with the Great Depression, and it is doing so right around us. It's not right-wing posturing. I mean, if it were, then Justin Trudeau would be seen as a paragon of liberalism, not a hypocritical laughing stock. Jair Bolsonaro and Nanendra Modi would not have ridden an upswing of ultranationalism.

 

[Darat]

See the liberal democrats in the United kingdom. They got into coalition with the Tories in 2010 on the pledge that they would provide input, and proceeded to be yes men to every single nasty party policy that came up, from tuition fees to hostile environment, from bedroom tax to royal mail privatisation. Or for another example look at how macron mouthed all the liberal platitudes on the campaign trail but at his keynote g20 described African women as baby factories. Liberals will mouth platitudes of intelligence and how they enjoy a variety of dinnerplates, but when pressed, those platitudes do not match actions. If what you say is true, the lib dems would have walked out of the coalition the moment it clashed with their principles.

It would seem you have a rather idiosyncratic idea of what liberalism is. Liberals in the UK of course supported attempts to reduce government "interference" in the market and so on that's at the core of liberalism (the name sorts of gives it away) , because liberalism isn't "leftism". This is way the Liberal Party in the UK has been in coalition in government with both Labour and Conservative parties. They share some principles with Labour, some with Conservative. But in the end it is quite distinct from either of the other two.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Have YOU read Mein Kampf? Do you have any pull quotes from that book or any of these sources that support your understanding of Nazi ideology? If the murder of millions is as much a part of Nazi ideology as you say it is, it shouldn't be too difficult to find explicit references. Or references to passages that you believe can be interpreted as calling for mass murder.

I tried reading it and learned something very important: don't hire Rudolf Hess as an editor!

Churchill read it and it helped him make a very accurate assessment of the Nazi's intentions. And that's without the convenient power of hindsight that we have. A couple of genocides and a couple of attempted genocides.

 

[varwoche]

<snip off-topic red herring>

Except once I snip it, there's nothing left.

Your musings are irrelevant to the thread. Your posts may as well be a result of a software bug causing posts to bleed over from unrelated threads. I will add however, regardless how things might have played out with Native Americans over time, and regardless your BS "noble savage" strawman, Manifest Destiny amounted to codified ethnic cleansing.

 

[luchog]

I tried reading it and learned something very important: don't hire Rudolf Hess as an editor!

Yeah, even allowing for translation issues, it's kind of a rambling mess.

Churchill read it and it helped him make a very accurate assessment of the Nazi's intentions. And that's without the convenient power of hindsight that we have. A couple of genocides and a couple of attempted genocides.

Churchill was one of the few who took it seriously, and attempted to warn the allies about the Holocaust well before it became common knowledge. He was effectively shouted down by influential members of parliament, and ignored by much of the rest of the world.

The weird part is that even Jews in the US downplayed the warning from Churchill and others (including refugees); considering the idea so ludicrously heinous that no reasonable human could possibly have meant what Hitler and his cronies said, and wrote it off as counter-productively exaggerated propaganda. One can see their point, the scale and scope of it was unprecedented in human history, but the intent was very clear in the Nazis' published writings and public speeches.