Always willing to learn! Thanks for the recommendat...wait. Oh, I guess you didn't provide any evidence and just relied on a personal attack implying I was uneducated. Of course, I wouldn't stoop to such childish name calling, so I'll provide a reading list:
Wagener, O. (1985). Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, ed. Henry Ashby Turner Jr., trans. Ruth Hein.
Wireless. (1925, November 28).Hitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin. The New York Times.
Breiting, R., & Hitler, A. (1971). Secret conversations with Hitler: the two newly-discovered 1931 interviews. John Day Co..
"Why Are We Anti-Semites?" Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager.
Temin, P. (1991). Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Business History Review, 65(4), 1023.
Klemperer, V. (2016). I Will Bear Witness, Volume 2: A Diary of the Nazi Years: 1942-1945. Modern Library.
Lemmons, R. (2015). Goebbels and Der Angriff. University Press of Kentucky.
Goebbels, J., & Schweitzer, H. (1929). Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler: etwas zum Nachdenken. Eher.
Now, I am NOT saying that the modern left = Nazism. But, by reading their own words, it is clear that the National Socialists did, indeed, adhere to some of the tenants of socialism. So simply dismissing it as a semantic argument in nomenclature is ignoring that influence.
LOL, I'm not a liberal either.
I know you've only been here a year, but if you look at my post history all the way back to the beginning of the G.W.B. administration, you'll find that I'm a centrist who often leans left due to some of my pet issues (LGBT and women's rights, specifically).
As for the article, that does contain more information than I originally had (and I read several sources yesterday). If what the promoters say is true, and they were actively promoting Zionism, then my opinion would be different.
As it is, though, it's one group's word against another's. With no other evidence, I'm inclined to disregard the whole thing.
Seems obvious enough you're not liberal but rather inclined to be fair and balanced as mentioned. Must be the bad influence from the degenerate side.
I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I don't much care if it's not to your liking...
Sure, so does O'Reilly or Hannity.
Dude, fuck off.
Nonpartisan is not a dirty word.
LOL, I'm not a liberal either.
I know you've only been here a year, but if you look at my post history all the way back to the beginning of the G.W.B. administration, you'll find that I'm a centrist who often leans left due to some of my pet issues (LGBT and women's rights, specifically).
As for the article, that does contain more information than I originally had (and I read several sources yesterday). If what the promoters say is true, and they were actively promoting Zionism, then my opinion would be different.
As it is, though, it's one group's word against another's. With no other evidence, I'm inclined to disregard the whole thing.
Gaza and the West Bank are ultimately controlled by Israel. Israel calls the shot and is the responsible state. Israel chose the Bantustan model of apartheid for its Palestinian subjects.
There were quasi-socialist elements in the Nazi Party, mostly predating Hitler (exemplified by the Strasser brothers). Far right parties often have that double-character, trying to appeal to different groups by incorporating some 'workerist' and anti-corporate-elite politics to gain working-class support, it's still visible on the far right today.
But Hitler himself was very clearly never remotely of that denomination, and of course had all the quasi-socialist elements eliminated (literally) when he liquidated the SA, when he needed the support of the industrialist classes and the conservative elites. It was in the end those conservative forces, pretty much the opposite of socialist, that put Hitler into power, in the mistaken belief they could control him. The Nazis manipulated all parts of the political spectrum, nobody came out of that disaster well.
You do realize that liberalism is to fascism as progressivism is to conservatism? If you are for individual liberties you are a liberal, period.
If they were openly promoting Zionism that wouldn't change their support of LGBTQ, would it? Considering that stoning is the punishment for being gay in the Palestinian areas and that Israel has a very large gay population inhabiting it's capitol it would make sense to be for Israel and against the Palestinians on that matter which is the ONLY matter this parade has anything to do with, LGBTQ rights.
The problem with the use of the word "apartheid" is that it is racially charged, which is precisely why the word is chosen. Yet if this was about race, then Arab-Israelis would be treated similarly to the Palestinians in the West Bank. They called the security wall an "apartheid wall." Yet that wall reduced terrorism by over 90%, saving not only the lives of Israeli Jews, but also the lives of Palestinians who inevitably die when Israel retaliates for the attacks. It seems rather absurd to claim that a policy which has a clear security rationale and is saving lives is actually motivated by racism as the word "apartheid" suggests.
The truth is, Arab-Israelis are treated better than non-Muslims in Arab countries. Indeed, they are treated better than Muslims in Arab countries. There is little freedom of religion in Arab countries. In many of them, non-Muslims can't even have public places of worship. Also, Shias and Sunnis discriminate routinely and heavily against each other. These criticisms of Israeli policies would be a lot easier to bear if leftist critics of Israel displayed the slightest concern over discrimination and human rights abuses among Arab countries, including their treatment of non-Muslims, in addition to their treatment of LGBT and women. Yet these issues take up very little bandwidth on the western left. Criticism of Israel is orders of magnitude more common.
I think it's fair to criticize Israeli policies toward the West Bank and Gaza. I myself think that Israeli settlements are a detriment to the peace process. But applying a racially charged word like "apartheid" in an attempt to de-legimitize Israel, while ignoring or soft-peddling discrimination and other human rights abuses throughout the Arab and Islamic world, is unacceptable. When there is a double standard, it must be explained rather than ignored. I've never heard any critic of Israel attempt to explain it, because the explanation isn't pretty. Some leftists are just as tribal as people on the right, and it appears that anything related to Muslims is now considered part of our "tribe," including the tacit acceptance of some of the worst human rights abuses from these religiously conservative Muslims countries, while the liberal democracy of Israel is seen as the "other." This double standard is so hypocritical that it is frankly embarrassing.
Just look at the attitude of these event organizers, who are supposedly speaking up for LGBT rights. They describe themselves as "pro-Palestinian," yet LGBT are treated terribly by Palestinians, just as they are in the entire Arab world. While Israel treats LGBT well. Yet people who show up to an event bearing a Star of David are ejected. This is how twisted elements of the left have become over Israel, the Palestinians, and Islam.
LGBTQ movements tend to be against Zionism esp in the US because they're often aligned with the right, you know the people who don't care much for the gays.
Well then they are not LGBTQ proponents but a political group that has other agendas where that is only one part. I think they'll lose out in the end if they put aside their goals for LGBTQ rights to squabble over political leanings.
Great job apologizing for a very oppressive regime. I'm sure you're aware from just looking at any maps of the wall and its expansion that it was meant to pen in the Palestinians not unlike was done to the jews some decades before. That older policy also pretty arguable cut down on crime by jews, as your counterpart of yesteryear might reason.
I'd say being against people aligned against LGBTQ rights is a pretty straightforward LGBTQ agenda.
Oh for fucks sakes, you can't simplify an issue like LGBTQ rights into "right vs left" and then go singling out Zionists (who for the most part are liberals) as the enemy of the LGBTQ movement.
Just stop.
Israel is far from a "repressive regime". Compared to the PLO and Hamas they are human rights saints.
Zionists are hardly liberal. Keep in mind the religious zionists are the anti-gay people in that very Israel you keep insisting is all for the gay.
They're extremely oppressive towards what they perceive as lesser people, and inflict far more damage than Hamas et al who are relatively humanitarian in those areas. Westerner sometimes take the side of Israel because they don't give a shit about said lesser people either.
I'm sure you believe that's great justification for sticking Palestinians in a ghetto, same as everyone else historically supportive of such policies.Except the stated goal of Hamas is a complete genocide of Jews through the destruction of Israel. Their use of civilians as targets is well documented and so is their use of hospitals and schools for shooting rockets and storing ammunition. They often tell the people that Israel calls and tries to warn about an imminent strike to stay put.
It's pretty obvious why you whose to weasel "zionists" to "jews" here.Zionists are people who believe that Israel should exist and be the home for Jews so that includes almost every single Jew there is in the US. Are you saying that most of the Jews in the US are fascists and not liberals?
You can glorify those terrorists in Hamas all you want but in reality a Jew would be dead in their area while Muslims live in peace with Jews in Israel.
woolfe9998: The problem with the use of the word "apartheid" is that it is racially charged, which is precisely why the word is chosen. Yet if this was about race, then Arab-Israelis would be treated similarly to the Palestinians in the West Bank. They called the security wall an "apartheid wall." Yet that wall reduced terrorism by over 90%, saving not only the lives of Israeli Jews, but also the lives of Palestinians who inevitably die when Israel retaliates for the attacks. It seems rather absurd to claim that a policy which has a clear security rationale and is saving lives is actually motivated by racism as the word "apartheid" suggests.
M: You make a good point. I can't imagine not doing something when one group is being murdered by another, I would expect some similar strong measures to be implemented if some group of 'others' was forcibly injected onto some say, Arab land to solve the guilt complex of other world powers. Not taking sides, just saying that where you stand on an issue is usually about whose ox got gored and, in my opinion, if you are human, at one time or another you have been screwed royally by somebody.
w: The truth is, Arab-Israelis are treated better than non-Muslims in Arab countries. Indeed, they are treated better than Muslims in Arab countries. There is little freedom of religion in Arab countries. In many of them, non-Muslims can't even have public places of worship. Also, Shias and Sunnis discriminate routinely and heavily against each other. These criticisms of Israeli policies would be a lot easier to bear if leftist critics of Israel displayed the slightest concern over discrimination and human rights abuses among Arab countries, including their treatment of non-Muslims, in addition to their treatment of LGBT and women. Yet these issues take up very little bandwidth on the western left. Criticism of Israel is orders of magnitude more common.
M: Parts of the liberal left are authoritarian and quite insane, in my opinion and what you state here is an example. I would call this disproportional emphasis on perfection, a perfection that seems to exist nowhere. Still, what is imperfect is something that can be improved and should not hide from that fact, no?
w: I think it's fair to criticize Israeli policies toward the West Bank and Gaza. I myself think that Israeli settlements are a detriment to the peace process. But applying a racially charged word like "apartheid" in an attempt to de-legimitize Israel, while ignoring or soft-peddling discrimination and other human rights abuses throughout the Arab and Islamic world, is unacceptable.
M: It is what people who have emotional bias do, demonize the other to justify some noble idea being supported by violence because of unconscious suffering and the inability to forgive. Also, the really greatest critics of Israel are morally evolved Jews who refuse to allow Jewish identity corrupt their the universality of their moral views.
w: When there is a double standard, it must be explained rather than ignored. I've never heard any critic of Israel attempt to explain it, because the explanation isn't pretty. Some leftists are just as tribal as people on the right, and it appears that anything related to Muslims is now considered part of our "tribe," including the tacit acceptance of some of the worst human rights abuses from these religiously conservative Muslims countries, while the liberal democracy of Israel is seen as the "other." This double standard is so hypocritical that it is frankly embarrassing.
M: The double standard, in my opinion, is the refusal to suffer ones grief, the clinging to past grievance and the intention to avenge it. This insures an endless supply of grievances that must be rectified and causes the world of programmed sleepers to endlessly spin round and round.
w: Just look at the attitude of these event organizers, who are supposedly speaking up for LGBT rights. They describe themselves as "pro-Palestinian," yet LGBT are treated terribly by Palestinians, just as they are in the entire Arab world. While Israel treats LGBT well. Yet people who show up to an event bearing a Star of David are ejected. This is how twisted elements of the left have become over Israel, the Palestinians, and Islam.
M: Yes and the same twisted element exists for any and all who point fingers at anybody but themselves. We are the world and our unconscious assumptions is what we see when we look at it. There is no fix but there is transcendence, the acceptance that the ego must die and the grace of surrender. Joy and tears are the water of life.
I'm sure you believe that's great justification for sticking Palestinians in a ghetto, same as everyone else historically supportive of such policies.
It's pretty obvious why you whose to weasel "zionists" to "jews" here.
There are many people in the US and west in general who use terrorism as an excuse to elevate their social position over lower status brown people, and let's be clear about whether they're liberal or not.
The most accurate historical analogy for the Palestinians is the situation with american natives. They were on the losing end of a war and as a result got everything taken away, penned up then treated terribly. Apologists for a long time justified this against the "savages", much like the same apologists can continue today when there's no price to be paid for lack of moral virtue.
If the jews in the ghetto fought the nazis harder I wouldn't blame them for it, but nazi apologists would.So you're just going to ignore all the crimes of Hamas and keep proclaiming that they are "humanitarians"? I do believe that terrorists that gladly sacrifice their own brothers should be either dead or in prison, a ghetto is far too nice for those people. I would suggest that the likes of BNP or Alt Right are too fucking retarded to be counted as "people" in the first place. This does not mean that terrorism is benign or shouldn't be dealt with using every tool there is.
I think you're aware hardly every jew is a zionist, and that the american conservatives are biggest fans of the anti-Palestine rhetoric. Even the left in israel aren't exactly on board with your peers on this matter.Try to follow along here, almost every Jew is a Zionist and Jews are mainly liberal. You certainly understand the implications of those facts so you go with "I know you didn't just change zionist to Jews but I was wrong and I'm far too small of a man to ever admit that".
Well... I think I'm going to ignore all attempts to have a discussion with you on this topic in the future.
If the jews in the ghetto fought the nazis harder I wouldn't blame them for it, but nazi apologists would.
M: You make a good point. I can't imagine not doing something when one group is being murdered by another, I would expect some similar strong measures to be implemented if some group of 'others' was forcibly injected onto some say, Arab land to solve the guilt complex of other world powers. Not taking sides, just saying that where you stand on an issue is usually about whose ox got gored and, in my opinion, if you are human, at one time or another you have been screwed royally by somebody.
w: M: Parts of the liberal left are authoritarian and quite insane, in my opinion and what you state here is an example. I would call this disproportional emphasis on perfection, a perfection that seems to exist nowhere. Still, what is imperfect is something that can be improved and should not hide from that fact, no?
M: It is what people who have emotional bias do, demonize the other to justify some noble idea being supported by violence because of unconscious suffering and the inability to forgive. Also, the really greatest critics of Israel are morally evolved Jews who refuse to allow Jewish identity corrupt their the universality of their moral views.
M: The double standard, in my opinion, is the refusal to suffer ones grief, the clinging to past grievance and the intention to avenge it. This insures an endless supply of grievances that must be rectified and causes the world of programmed sleepers to endlessly spin round and round.
M: Yes and the same twisted element exists for any and all who point fingers at anybody but themselves. We are the world and our unconscious assumptions is what we see when we look at it. There is no fix but there is transcendence, the acceptance that the ego must die and the grace of surrender. Joy and tears are the water of life.