Started By
Message
re: All men are rapists at heart
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:24 pm to derSturm37
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:24 pm to derSturm37
So you're not a "Nazi" but would you, broadly speaking, say that you're a national socialist?
1
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:35 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
So you're not a "Nazi" but would you, broadly speaking, say that you're a national socialist?
No.
I would be a card carrying Libertarian save for just a few of their core beliefs. (Allowing Wal~Mart and AT&T to take over the solar system being among these).
Similarly there are several core standards with national socialsim which keep me from joining. On the same token there are several there with which I ardently agree. But then, the same would apply to many if not most Americans.
I was a social democrat in college. I once (for a short time) even considered myself a Marxist. I am become a conservative over time. And I will admit that the origin and impetus of this transformation was fear.
There. I said it. I am afraid. I am afraid that the pursuit of unbridled social liberty here and now is moving too fast, and that certain inherent properties of Nature (and Human Nature) dictate our exercising more caution. Because certain properties of The Universe forbid the success of the liberal cause.
If I come across as being as conservative as was Mussolini then it's probably because my conservatism is reactionary, and that I am reacting to a a large body of influential Americans who seem as liberal as Hoffman. As lunatics, in other words.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:36 pm to derSturm37
quote:
Similarly there are several core standards with national socialsim which keep me from joining. On the same token there are several there with which I ardently agree. But then, the same would apply to many if not most Americans.
What standards of National Socialism do you agree with?
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:38 pm to derSturm37
quote:
I am become a conservative over time
You still have a long way to go.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:46 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
What standards of National Socialism do you agree with?
Hundreds probably. (And, again, there are dozens if not hundreds with which I disagree).
Here's a small quick sample:
The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province. or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.
We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.
We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled.
Any further immigration of non-[Americans] must be prevented.
All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
We demand the maintenance of a sound middle-class.
In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious [American] to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of [The United States]
-------------------
What's not to like?
This post was edited on 3/17/15 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:55 pm to derSturm37
Alot not to like. Alot of demands there sir, and with demands, the only way to make that happen is a huge, bloated government. Big government in whatever form means less freedom.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 11:59 pm to derSturm37
quote:
So you're saying that nothing a national socialist would say could be logical?
No. I didn't say that. You read my post and responded to it emotionally. Ironically enough.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:00 am to Mizzou4ever
quote:
the only way to make that happen is a huge, bloated government. Big government in whatever form means less freedom.
Big government as WE understand it-- with a lot of pencil pushers-- not so much. Most of these "demands" could be met with an albeit significant Civilian Corps of Field Agents. People not unlike postal workers, who have no inherent personal power whatever. All in all this wouldn't be a terrible thing-- it could replace the welfare system to a degree, for instance-- so long as employees could be FIRED for not performing effectively. Again, this going against government as WE know it.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:04 am to the808bass
You said (and I quote): "You say some stuff that sounds logical. And then you say something a national socialist would say."
You say some stuff that sounds logical.
And then
You say some stuff a national socialist would say.
Were you not implying that the second bolded phrase is in direct opposition to the first?
You say some stuff that sounds logical.
And then
You say some stuff a national socialist would say.
Were you not implying that the second bolded phrase is in direct opposition to the first?
This post was edited on 3/18/15 at 12:06 am
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:07 am to derSturm37
quote:
Most of these "demands" could be met with an albeit significant Civilian Corps of Field Agents.
Which would do nothing but grow and grow and grow, leading to the "pencil pushers" sooner or later. Government by it's very nature is to grow, which is why the founding fathers but limits on it. We live under a bastardized version of it now. Big government, again, in whatever form is no solution. In it's inherent form, it creates nothing of monetary value, all it does is take from the producers and redistributes it. You are allowing these utopian thoughts of the socialist movements blow smoke up your arse.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:15 am to Mizzou4ever
I think that socialism is here to stay. The prospect of diminishing the role of government equates to life in the wild wild west in my opinion. If y'all are ready to put your AK-47s on the gun racks of your trucks and see who's left standing when the smoke clears, then let's do it, I guess.
Having swallowed the socialism pill I'm now concerned with getting the objectives corrected. Ensuring that every worker and drone can change his colors from yellow and black to pink and orange, that he can drape himself in christmas lights, is not what's important in my opinion. Srengthening the hive and stinging the shite out of its enemies seems more important these days. To me.
Having swallowed the socialism pill I'm now concerned with getting the objectives corrected. Ensuring that every worker and drone can change his colors from yellow and black to pink and orange, that he can drape himself in christmas lights, is not what's important in my opinion. Srengthening the hive and stinging the shite out of its enemies seems more important these days. To me.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:20 am to Mizzou4ever
quote:
You still have a long way to go.
Is this a blessing? Then thank you.
I'll have to quit smoking if I'm going to make it.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:29 am to derSturm37
quote:
I think that socialism is here to stay.
You may be right on this, and it's not because socialism is the better form of government. More because over the last 30 years or so, kids have been indoctrinated at an early age by socialist leaning individuals foolish enough to believe in the utopium dream socialism propagates. Even when there is example after example of socialism failing.
I still hold out hope that there are still enough American people left that knows how evil and hideous pure, unfettered socialism is and takes back this country. Done in a peaceful fashion of course, afterall, socialism here has been pulled off in a peaceful way, albeit in a corrupt and poisonous way.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:41 am to Mizzou4ever
Yep. I agree.
Can you imagine life in 2015 America without the government's supporting the weak? They would have no recourse but to go Watts in every city and town. It would be Pre-Armageddon. And the goddamned media making it look for all the world to see like these were the righteous victims? Middle class kids, so conditioned by the Jews- er uh- News, would be joining their ranks, instead of contributing to their annihilation. So we'd be having to shoot them, too. Think about it.
There are only two options: Keep supporting the weak to postpone the inevitable, until we're nationally weaker than Guatemala on Oxycontin, or bite the bullet, get brutal in the most sanitary way possible, and weed out the weak sanely and systematically. Then perhaps we could be libertarian-ish.
Not until then. Not on your life.
Can you imagine life in 2015 America without the government's supporting the weak? They would have no recourse but to go Watts in every city and town. It would be Pre-Armageddon. And the goddamned media making it look for all the world to see like these were the righteous victims? Middle class kids, so conditioned by the Jews- er uh- News, would be joining their ranks, instead of contributing to their annihilation. So we'd be having to shoot them, too. Think about it.
There are only two options: Keep supporting the weak to postpone the inevitable, until we're nationally weaker than Guatemala on Oxycontin, or bite the bullet, get brutal in the most sanitary way possible, and weed out the weak sanely and systematically. Then perhaps we could be libertarian-ish.
Not until then. Not on your life.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:44 am to derSturm37
I said what I meant. Exactly.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:45 am to derSturm37
Do y'all know Jefferson's greatest oversight?
If he, along with the majority of the other major founding fathers (from The Age of Enlightenment as it were), could come to 2015 and take a tour of America his response would be, "Jesus. I could have sworn that NO Englishman would ever have chosen to live like that!"
If he, along with the majority of the other major founding fathers (from The Age of Enlightenment as it were), could come to 2015 and take a tour of America his response would be, "Jesus. I could have sworn that NO Englishman would ever have chosen to live like that!"
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:51 am to derSturm37
quote:
Can you imagine life in 2015 America without the government's supporting the weak?
If you mean weak being poor, then there are solutions to that problem. Not in socialism though, if I told you, you would think I was just another Capitalistic pig. One thing I hope you learn is that capitalism is far more compassionate and has better answers for the human condition than socialism could ever offer.
Sorry, but your Jews comment leads me to believe KSGamecock is right about your Nazi leanings. That shite comes straight out of the Nazi handbook.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:58 am to derSturm37
Well it appears that politics, social values, etc in England have evolved somewhat over time.
If Thomas Jefferson were born in the 20th century he would certainly have different views that reflect the times he lived in..
If Thomas Jefferson were born in the 20th century he would certainly have different views that reflect the times he lived in..
Posted on 3/18/15 at 1:01 am to Mizzou4ever
quote:
Sorry, but your Jews comment leads me to believe KSGamecock is right about your Nazi leanings. That shite comes straight out of the Nazi handbook.
Nazis feared Jews. derSturm fears Jews. Therefor derSturm is a Nazi. And Nazis are wrong about everything.
Correct?
Bad logic followed by worse.
Let's play What If. OK?
What if there was a small group of people who were the descendants of an ancient tribe. Everyone is the descendant of ancient tribes you say. Of course we are. But this group of people still identifies with a tribe that is over 5000 years old. While the rest of us have long since lost track of our tribes these have not. And they haven't for two reasons: 1) They created a written language early on. Good for them. Can't say anything bad about that. 2) They have for 5000 years tended to marry only one another. Here's where they're REALLY different. (Again, nothing wrong with this. Absolutely nothing wrong).
Now they are here. They have two nations, actually. Ours is one of theirs. They are a small band but they own a huge chunk of our media. They decide what you watch including your news.
These are facts. Nothing but facts thus far.
Now... What IF... WHAT IF mind you... WHAT IF as Hitler and Henry Ford and Walt Disney and Charles Lindbergh and thousands of others have claimed... Just WHAT IF they kind of sort of view themselves as better than the rest of us? Like they're God's favorite people in fact? And what if they EVER say things amongst themselves that they would never say in public. To "lower sorts" like you and me? (They even have a word for you and me. They call us Gentiles. You, me, and everyone else. Black, white, Asian, Pacific Islander, Australian Aborigine, whatever. We're all "gentiles". It's THE MOST Racist word in English. More racist than "the N word" because it excludes a vast multiple of, including, those excluded by the N word). And what if they've decided that, being God's favorite people, the world is rightfully theirs? Just WHAT IF?
And IF these things were true, then wouldn't it be convenient for them to have control over your media? To influence your beliefs? To, among these, make you think that anyone's saying anything against THEM is like some unpardonable sin?
This precluding perhaps untold other agendae?...
------------------------------------------------
Further postulation available upon request.
This post was edited on 3/18/15 at 1:48 am
Posted on 3/18/15 at 1:02 am to Spirit Of Aggieland
quote:
If Thomas Jefferson were born in the 20th century he would certainly have different views that reflect the times he lived in..
Yup. And I'm not sure he'd be so hip on "rule by the masses" if he had been.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News