Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Asked To Leave Restaurant

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sarah Huckabee Sanders Asked To Leave Restaurant

    Read about it here:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.34a22355c01a

  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    I wish, kid!
    1. From the first hours of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the propagandists on both sides of the conflict portrayed the struggle in stark, Manichaean language. The totalitarian nature of both regimes made this inevitable. On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution. —Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

    1 What propagandists are saying is not an argument
    2 Do you know who is Anne Applebaum ?Do you know that she was a member of the Board of Administration of the Washington Post ?
    What do you know about her husband, Sikorski ? Do you know that he is an ally of the Polish liberal politican Donald Tusk,an open opponent of the Polish nation state?
    Both Applebaum and Sikorski are members of the liberal anti national establishment .
    And the reliabilitry of Applebaum as a historian is very questionable :international proletarian revolution had no role in WWII : on June 22 1941, Stalin threw the international proletarian revolution under the bus ,and fished up Russian nationalism : the fight to protect Rodina .
    And, there is also the fact that she is an American, and the knowledge of American historians about everything that happend outside the US ,is not very reliable .
    The same applies also for European historians about things outside Europe .

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    No I dealt with them as part of my employment as a vo-tech instructor at a federal prison.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    How many neo-Nazis have you talked to? I dealt with them regularly for over two decades. They're violent, hate the government and government control, will turn on each other in an instant, and most of what they spout is racist nationalism. Mention Socialism or any other form of big government and they'll tell you that's the last thing they want. They're very connected to the Sovereign Citizen movement, and have an affinity for White one-percenter biker gangs although they won't generally join as it means too much regimentation for them.

    And, trust me... They are dumb as doorknobs.

    So, you don't have to worry, the neo-Nazis of today will never gain political power. They're too fragmented, too stupid, too violent to each other, and far to anarchist in mindset to ever have that happen.
    This is EXACTLY how the original Nazi were. They hated their government and socialism and they turned on each other in an instant...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

    The Night of the Long Knives (German: About this soundNacht der langen Messer(help·info)), also called Operation Hummingbird (German: Unternehmen Kolibri) or, in Germany, the Röhm Putsch,[a] was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany from June 30 to July 2, 1934, when the National Socialist German Workers Party, or Nazis, carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate Adolf Hitler's absolute hold on power in Germany. Many of those killed were leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the Nazis' own paramilitaryorganization, colloquially known as the "Brownshirts" due to the color of their uniforms. The best-known victim of the purge was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies.


    You are not convincing...

    p.s. do you deal with these neonazi @ stormfront?
    Last edited by pamak; 04 Aug 18, 13:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    LMAO!

    .

    If modern Neonazi come to power, they will shoot non Neonazi as agitators. Just because they cannot initiate such Nazi practices when they are weak (they still do it occasionally), it does not mean that they have rejected the Nazi platform and cult of death. Coming to such conclusions, is very naive. Also, the claim that they are individualistic is bogus. Most of them would love to see the society function like an army unit where there is no room for individualism...
    How many neo-Nazis have you talked to? I dealt with them regularly for over two decades. They're violent, hate the government and government control, will turn on each other in an instant, and most of what they spout is racist nationalism. Mention Socialism or any other form of big government and they'll tell you that's the last thing they want. They're very connected to the Sovereign Citizen movement, and have an affinity for White one-percenter biker gangs although they won't generally join as it means too much regimentation for them.

    And, trust me... They are dumb as doorknobs.

    So, you don't have to worry, the neo-Nazis of today will never gain political power. They're too fragmented, too stupid, too violent to each other, and far to anarchist in mindset to ever have that happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Because Neo-Nazis have adopted the racist politics and nationalism of the originals without adopting the rest of their platform. If the original Nazis were to take power today, they'd round up the Neo-Nazis and have them all shot as agitators and such much as they did to Bormann's SA. Neo-Nazis are on the Right because they are very individualistic-- sort of like Sovereign Citizens-- but also racist and nationalist as hell. They're also, singularly, the most violent-- mostly to each other-- bunch of dumb f*** knuckle draggers I've ever seen, and I've seen a good number of them. Thankfully, their numbers are miniscule.
    LMAO!

    .

    If modern Neonazi come to power, they will shoot non Neonazi as agitators. Just because they cannot initiate such Nazi practices when they are weak (they still do it occasionally), it does not mean that they have rejected the Nazi platform and cult of death. Coming to such conclusions, is very naive. Also, the claim that they are individualistic is bogus. Most of them would love to see the society function like an army unit where there is no room for individualism...
    Last edited by pamak; 04 Aug 18, 13:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Someone who claims that nazism is a fascist ideology does not know anything about
    and nazism , thus an American liberal and probably a millenial .
    I wish, kid!
    1. From the first hours of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the propagandists on both sides of the conflict portrayed the struggle in stark, Manichaean language. The totalitarian nature of both regimes made this inevitable. On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution. —Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism


    Leave a comment:


  • Paddybhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Someone who claims that nazism is a fascist ideology does not know anything about fascism and nazism , thus an American liberal and probably a millenial .
    Personal commentary deleted.

    Repeat violations will not be tolerated.

    ACG Staff
    Last edited by Salinator; 04 Aug 18, 13:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    LMAO

    You say Scopes has no knowledge of Europe but you spew your so called knowledge of the US daily.

    Where do you get your knowledge of Europe post WWI? Your not that old. You get it the same place as the rest of us. Reading.
    Someone who claims that nazism is a fascist ideology does not know anything about fascism and nazism , thus an American liberal and probably a millenial .

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    WHY do Neo-Nazi run on the far side of politics both in Germany and the US?
    Because Neo-Nazis have adopted the racist politics and nationalism of the originals without adopting the rest of their platform. If the original Nazis were to take power today, they'd round up the Neo-Nazis and have them all shot as agitators and such much as they did to Bormann's SA. Neo-Nazis are on the Right because they are very individualistic-- sort of like Sovereign Citizens-- but also racist and nationalist as hell. They're also, singularly, the most violent-- mostly to each other-- bunch of dumb f*** knuckle draggers I've ever seen, and I've seen a good number of them. Thankfully, their numbers are miniscule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Snopes is wrong. Socialism takes many forms, not one, and isn't so easily defined.

    In the truest form, the state owns and controls the means of production. But, other forms such as Statist Capitalism are Socialist in nature because the state controls what is produced even as the means to produce it remains in private hands. Other forms mix Capitalism on the micro scale (small business remains in private hands) with Socialism on the macro scale (big industry is nationalized). Those are just two of many examples of a Socialized economy.

    In Nazi Germany the economy was a mix of these. Statist Capitalism prevailed on most industry. The government set what was to be produced and by whom. Private corporations then produced the government's requirements. Small business was allowed to remain mostly private. Some large corporations, like Junkers (the largest aircraft manufacturer in Germany, or Opel and Ford once the war started) were nationalized and run by the government.

    Programs like Hitler Youth is another example of Socialization within society. Membership was all but mandatory for children. The state set the agenda entirely. Competing programs like Boy Scouts were outlawed. This is akin to say the Young Pioneers in the Soviet Union. Public education was mandatory and almost all private education below university was outlawed.

    Public transit was pushed by the government. Even vacations were largely a government run entity. The Nazis expected people to vacation in government approved locations. The Prora holiday resort on the Baltic built as part of the Strength Through Joy program is an example of this. A government run resort with a government agenda to indoctrinate those using it.

    Nazi Germany maintained a huge social-welfare state. This is another indication of a Socialist state.

    Like the Communist Soviet Union, Nazi Germany became a dictatorship and police state to enforce the idea of the State being everything to everyone. People won't buy into forced participation and forced altruism otherwise, both hallmarks of the Socialist state.
    WHY do Neo-Nazi run on the far side of politics both in Germany and the US?

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    1 Snopes is liberal,leftwing ,democrat ,biased .
    2 It has also no knowledge at all of what happened in Europe after WWI :someone who claims that nazism is a fascist ideology, does not know what he is talking about .
    LMAO

    You say Scopes has no knowledge of Europe but you spew your so called knowledge of the US daily.

    Where do you get your knowledge of Europe post WWI? Your not that old. You get it the same place as the rest of us. Reading.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    1 Snopes is liberal,leftwing ,democrat ,biased .
    2 It has also no knowledge at all of what happened in Europe after WWI :someone who claims that nazism is a fascist ideology, does not know what he is talking about .

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Snopes is wrong. Socialism takes many forms, not one, and isn't so easily defined.

    In the truest form, the state owns and controls the means of production. But, other forms such as Statist Capitalism are Socialist in nature because the state controls what is produced even as the means to produce it remains in private hands. Other forms mix Capitalism on the micro scale (small business remains in private hands) with Socialism on the macro scale (big industry is nationalized). Those are just two of many examples of a Socialized economy.

    In Nazi Germany the economy was a mix of these. Statist Capitalism prevailed on most industry. The government set what was to be produced and by whom. Private corporations then produced the government's requirements. Small business was allowed to remain mostly private. Some large corporations, like Junkers (the largest aircraft manufacturer in Germany, or Opel and Ford once the war started) were nationalized and run by the government.

    Programs like Hitler Youth is another example of Socialization within society. Membership was all but mandatory for children. The state set the agenda entirely. Competing programs like Boy Scouts were outlawed. This is akin to say the Young Pioneers in the Soviet Union. Public education was mandatory and almost all private education below university was outlawed.

    Public transit was pushed by the government. Even vacations were largely a government run entity. The Nazis expected people to vacation in government approved locations. The Prora holiday resort on the Baltic built as part of the Strength Through Joy program is an example of this. A government run resort with a government agenda to indoctrinate those using it.

    Nazi Germany maintained a huge social-welfare state. This is another indication of a Socialist state.

    Like the Communist Soviet Union, Nazi Germany became a dictatorship and police state to enforce the idea of the State being everything to everyone. People won't buy into forced participation and forced altruism otherwise, both hallmarks of the Socialist state.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rutger
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    When are you going to realize that the Nazis were Leftists?
    Were the Nazis Socialists?

    We look into the burning (at least for some) question of whether members of the National German Socialist Workers' Party were accurately classified as "socialists".

    By
    David Emery
    5 September 2017
    2kRedditBufferPinterestTwitterMore

    The full name of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party, the political movement that brought him to power and supplied the infrastructure of the fascist dictatorship over which he would preside, was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. According to historians, the complicated moniker reveals more about the image the party wanted to project and the constituency it aimed to build than it did about the Nazis’ true political goals, which were building a state based on racial superiority and brute-force governance.

    Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” — which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.

    The debate has heated up to the point of critical mass in recent years, thanks to the rise of nationalist political movements reacting in part to stagnant economic conditions and the perceived threat of globalism, and also in part to a flood of immigrants and foreign refugees pouring into Europe and the United States because of war and economic crises abroad.

    A subset of these groups, identified as ethno-nationalists, hold racially-tinged views ranging from nativism (the belief that the interests of native-born people must be defended against encroachment by immigrants) to full-on, hate-mongering white supremacy. Some of the latter openly align themselves with historical Nazism, to the point of waving swastikas, spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric, and imitating the tactics of Adolf Hitler.

    Add to this mix the ascendancy of President Donald Trump, who won the 2016 election in part by courting a nativist, anti-immigrant constituency, and whose reticent condemnation of white nationalist protesters who held a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that erupted in fatal violence in August 2017 drew howls of criticism from all but his most loyal supporters, and the urgency of sorting out these political associations begins to make sense.

    The Nazi Problem

    Nobody, least of all the millions of rank-and-file right-leaning Americans who voted for Donald Trump, wants to be lumped in with Nazis. It’s a fact, however, that Nazi-friendly organizations, Nazi symbols, and Nazi gestures were in evidence at the disastrous Charlottesville event, whose unfortunate title was not “Unite the Left,” but “Unite the Right.”

    Although the terms “left” and “right” as used in American politics can be somewhat less than perspicuous, they are helpful in delineating the basic ideological divide between liberalism/progressivism (as embodied mainly by the Democratic Party) on one side (“the left”), and conservatism/traditionalism (as embodied mainly by the Republican Party) on the other (“the right”). Seen as a spectrum or continuum of ideologies, socialism/communism traditionally falls on the far left end of this scale, nationalism/fascism on the far right.

    The Nazi problem comes down to this: As an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, anti-egalitarian and fascist ideology, Nazism naturally falls on the extreme far-right end of the political spectrum; but if it can be successfully argued that it’s really a form of socialism, it would make more sense to place it on the far left. That being the case, it’s becoming more and more common to encounter insistent polemics like this one published on the right-wing blog UFP News:
    The Nazis were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape today.
    A similar argument is propounded in the 2017 book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D’Souza, who maintains that Adolf Hitler himself was a “dedicated socialist”:
    In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
    However, the assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

    Richard J. Evans: ‘It Would Be Wrong to See Nazism as a Form of, or an Outgrowth From, Socialism’

    Despite having declared, at various times, “I am a socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals, on a personal level Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. This excerpt from a speech Hitler gave in 1922 (quoted in William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, published in 1960) is indicative:
    Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist.
    And this is what came out of Adolf Hitler’s mouth on another occasion when a comrade riled him by harping on socialism (as reported by Henry A. Turner, author of German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, published in 1985):
    Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.
    In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term:
    [Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.
    For members of the Nazi Party, in fact, defending socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the party, or worse. Of party leader and dissenter Otto Strasser (whose similarly-minded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be assassinated by the Nazis), William Shirer writes:
    Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party.
    The plain truth, writes Historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich, was that Hitler and his party saw socialism, communism, and leftism generally as inimical to everything they hoped to achieve:
    In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.
    What Nazism Stood For

    The National Socialists completely ignored socialism’s primary aim (replacing the existing class-based society with an egalitarian one in which workers owned the means of production) and substituted their own topsy-turvy agenda, Evans writes, “replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader”:
    The “National Socialists” wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.
    German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterizes this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”:
    This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.
    The proof was in the pudding. Not long after acquiring the reins of power, the Nazis banned the Social Democratic Party and sent its leaders and other leftists identified as threats to the National Socialist program to concentration camps. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia:
    In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.
    Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded to restrict their availability to “racially worthy” (non-Jewish) beneficiaries. In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers. In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.”

    Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.
    https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/...is-socialists/

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X