Liberal Forum

our current ethics are mostly based on the idea that hitler was mean and if you sound anything like hitler then you are going to kill jews. Thats really the only thing most people care about.

but what did hitler actually believe? Well, unlike everyone else i actually read him. Lots of people assume they know what hitler thought, but they are simply incorrect.

I will start out that hitler expressed clearly in mein kampf that he always thought religious anti semitism was distateful and stupid. He doesnt care what faith people have, and accusing jews of killing jesus is just small minded. He also believed a great deal of antisemitism was based on jealousy for their success. In fact, hitler made many of the exact same arguments against anti semites of his day that you hear people repeat ad nauseam today.

yet he was an anti semite. Why? well let me tell you (and btw i actually do not agree with all of it and i do not think he got to the heart of the matter):

first he hated the jewish attitude towards work. hitler believed that work was a way for an individual to give something to the community. Having a productive occupation was almost synonymous with socialism for hitler, and he believed that any decent aryan would strive to work for their community even if they were not paid for it. But jews, in his opinion, and he would cite the old testament, hated to do work. And this stems from their lack of respect for community. According to jews the great sin that egyptians committed against them was forcing them to work...and the great promise of their religion was to no longer require work. Hitler felt this was an alien and distasteful attitude.

 
 

second, hitler felt jews had no true high culture. In comparison to aryans who were forged in a frozen tundra and who acquired a desire to constantly strive for the divine, jews never experienced hardship so they only care for material and worldly things. He pointed out there is no real jewish architecure, no jewish literature, no real jewish music...jews only parrot whatever high culture there is in the civilization they live as parasites in and create nothing that is uniquely their own.

 
 

third, hitler felt the method of jewish success revolved around deception and usury. The jew is a fundamentally international person and thus international finance is an intrinsically jewish creation...and its natural consequence is to erode nations and blend all of them together. Thus he attacked marxism for its focus against industry...which is a national form of capital and work...while ignoring the destructive influence of international finance. And debt, he believed, was a natural method of slavery...which relates to his first point against jews. And when a people live in desperate economic precarity as debt slavery puts them in, they will lose any motive to work for their fellow man, and this will disintegrate the community and devolve civilization into barbarism.

these things hitler felt was simply tied to the jewish nature and jewish blood, and jews will by nature express these traits whether it is conscious or not. 

anyway, this is the real story. His antisemitism was not based on feelings of superiority nor inferiority...he simply felt jews acted like an invasive species on an aryan population...much like rabbits became an invasive species in australia...or the eucalyptus tree is invasive in california (btw israel named eucalyptus as its national tree)

FOS » 03 Sep 2022, 10:55 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 10:55 pm

third, hitler felt the method of jewish success revolved around deception and usury. The jew is a fundamentally international person and thus international finance is an intrinsically jewish creation...and its natural consequence is to erode nations and blend all of them together. Thus he attacked marxism for its focus against industry...which is a national form of
anyway, this is the real story. His antisemitism was not based on feelings of superiority nor inferiority...he simply felt jews acted like an invasive species on an aryan population...much like rabbits became an invasive species in australia...or the eucalyptus tree is invasive in california (btw israel named eucalyptus as its national tree)
 

I've just a few comments on your posts.

1st:  A minor suggestion.  Many of your target audience do not fully understand key terms in your subject.  I hate that this is the case, but something we have to live with due to the constant attempts by various interests to obfuscate what they profess.  I find it consistently confusing to readers when addressing the subject of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism.  I know it's rough but foresight can stave off much of the misunderstanding.

Marxism is socialism.  Marxist-Leninism is a bastardization\augmentation of socialism called communism.  You referred to Nazism as socialist.  Hitler and the Nazi's were not socialists, they were a bastardization\augmentation of socialism called National Socialism or Fascism.  In many ways augmentations from socialism for Communism and Fascism are opposites.  Which is why the Nazi's battled in the streets with the Communists.  See how confusing it can be.  It helps to use consistent terms such as the following:

1 Capitalism - You earn according to the value of your input towards production. Equal opportunity not equal outcomes.  Free enterprise and freedom to enter into private contracts.
2 Socialism - 100% taxation (essentially confiscation of production) to be distributed evenly or according to the perceived needs by the government. Everyone receive an equal share of the produce regardless of who contributed to the production of those goods and services.
3. Communism - Socialist basis where all workers essentially belong to a single labor union. The heads of the single legal party are the heads of the union. "Workers of the nation unite". Also closely related to Marxist-Leninism where the Party\union controls the commanding heights of the economy (read Lenin's Commanding Heights Speech). All means of production (especially the major industries) are owned by the Party and private enterprise is forbidden. All land, steel mills, refineries, etc.
4. National Socialism - Referred to by many as Fascism. Socialist basis where citizens are expected to contribute more to the nation than they consume. The Fatherland or Motherland is the focus with an intense appeal to national patriotism. Any groups who contribute less than they consume are forced out (exterminated in the case of Hitler) and not to be included as nationals for equal distributions of produce. First they killed the mentally ill. Then those in prison, then the gypsies, then the jews (among others). The Party determines who contributes their share and who does not.
 

I do not profess these are the only definitions. There are a bewildering number of slightly different definitions. To make matters worse, many governments are a hybrid. For instance the US is capitalist with many examples of socialism present. Just a suggestion.  Worse still is the tendency to rename the same thing when certain systems fall out of favor.  For instance Socialism pays everyone an equal wage.  Progressivism by contrast taxes all income above the average and redistributes it to all those who earn below the average until the two are indistinguishable.  See Gebhart's fairwell address.... "Our goal is to take from the Haves and give to the havenots until the two are indistinguishable".  Well how is that different from just equal pay for all?  It is merely a mathematical rearrangement.

2. A very good assessment of Mein Kampf. Perhaps the best I've heard. And it is accurate for the most part. However, Hitler left out many of the more ghastly aspects of his intentions. I firmly believe that unwritten in its pages were the intention to commit unspeakable acts of murder and violence even as early as Rudolf Hess put ink to page.
 

LibDave » 03 Sep 2022, 11:47 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:47 pm

.

Marxism is socialism.  Marxist-Leninism is a bastardization\augmentation of socialism called communism.  You referred to Nazism as socialist.  Hitler and the Nazi's were not socialists, they were a bastardization\augmentation of socialism called National Socialism or Fascism.  In many ways augmentations from socialism for Communism and Fascism are opposites.  Which is why the Nazi's battled in the streets with the Communists.  See how confusing it can be.  It helps to use consistent terms such as the following:

socialism, at its most basic, is simply sharing.  A family unit is socialist, unless you make the kids pay rent to the parents when they are toddlers.  

Families are socialist within their own households.  They share a roof, they share expenses.  Extended families can be extremely socialist as well, as shown by communities like Mennonite and Amish villages.  This is where race comes into the equation.

All members of a race can be thought of as distant relatives, but cross racially, not so much.  Naziism, (National socialism) means extending socialist policies toward an entire state, and keeping that state racially pure, so that citizens can be unified in efforts and achieve great things.

The modern version of U.S. socialism, where socialist programs are applied across all sorts of racial and cultural barriers, is dysfunctional.  Individualism is incompatible with socialism, Hence our inability to build anything anymore, or have any kind of cooperation (collectivism).

In nations where there is racial homogeneity, socialism works fine.  That is why Japan has universal health care and we don’t.

When you throw a blanket on all socialism and say it all sucks, you are actually saying that any and all cooperation among humans is terrible.  By your logic, we should have never built the interstate highway system or put a man on the moon.  
 
 

SJConspirator » 04 Sep 2022, 12:00 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:00 am

socialism, at its most basic, is simply sharing.  A family unit is socialist, unless you make the kids pay rent to the parents when they are toddlers.  

Families are socialist within their own households.  They share a roof, they share expenses.  Extended families can be extremely socialist as well, as shown by communities like Mennonite and Amish villages.  This is where race comes into the equation.

All members of a race can be thought of as distant relatives, but cross racially, not so much.  Naziism, (National socialism) means extending socialist policies toward an entire state, and keeping that state racially pure, so that citizens can be unified in efforts and achieve great things.

The modern version of U.S. socialism, where socialist programs are applied across all sorts of racial and cultural barriers, is dysfunctional.  Individualism is incompatible with socialism, Hence our inability to build anything anymore, or have any kind of cooperation (collectivism).

In nations where there is racial homogeneity, socialism works fine.  That is why Japan has universal health care and we don’t.

When you throw a blanket on all socialism and say it all sucks, you are actually saying that any and all cooperation among humans is terrible.  By your logic, we should have never built the interstate highway system or put a man on the moon.

Distinction of scale.  But when referring to economic systems of entire nations its a good basis.  Distinguishing by scale and demographic merely confuses the issues more.  In my humble opinion IMHO.  Remember, most have not devoted as much time as you and I towards and understanding of this topic.

LibDave » 04 Sep 2022, 12:04 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:04 am

Distinction of scale.  But when referring to economic systems of entire nations its a good basis.  Distinguishing by scale and demographic merely confuses the issues more.  In my humble opinion IMHO.  Remember, most have not devoted as much time as you and I towards and understanding of this topic.

well Germany is only the size of a average U.S. state.  It is about scale, but also about genetic similarity.  Socialism fails spectacularly when it is applied to a very large, diverse group

LibDave » 03 Sep 2022, 11:47 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:47 pm

I've just a few comments on your posts.

1st:  A minor suggestion.  Many of your target audience do not fully understand key terms in your subject.  I hate that this is the case, but something we have to live with due to the constant attempts by various interests to obfuscate what they profess.  I find it consistently confusing to readers when addressing the subject of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism.  I know it's rough but foresight can stave off much of the misunderstanding.

Marxism is socialism.  Marxist-Leninism is a bastardization\augmentation of socialism called communism.  You referred to Nazism as socialist.  Hitler and the Nazi's were not socialists, they were a bastardization\augmentation of socialism called National Socialism or Fascism.  In many ways augmentations from socialism for Communism and Fascism are opposites.  Which is why the Nazi's battled in the streets with the Communists.  See how confusing it can be.  It helps to use consistent terms such as the following:

wrong. nazis were actual socialists. they viewed marxists as fake socialist, and so do i.

socialism is fundamentally about a community spirit and collaboration, as opposed to capitalism which stresses competition between individuals.

marxism was a fake ideology meant to separate socialism from anti semitism and from the natural socialist opposition to finance, which is fundamentally jewish. (thus the rothschilds were ardent supporters of marx)

i mean you can sit there and make assertions, but your own world view is full of internal contradictions while mine are not. Marx noticeably failed to attack international forms of 'capitalism' and literally only focused on national methods of wealth production. If he was going to stay true to his stupid materialist dialect then he should have done the reverse. right?
 
 

FOS » 03 Sep 2022, 10:54 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 10:54 pm

our current ethics are mostly based on the idea that hitler was mean and if you sound anything like hitler then you are going to kill jews. Thats really the only thing most people care about.

and btw i actually do not agree with all of it and i do not think he got to the heart of the matter):

first he hated the jewish attitude towards work. hitler believed that work was a way for an individual to give something to the community. Having a productive occupation was almost synonymous with socialism for hitler, and he believed that any decent aryan would strive to work for their community even if they were not paid for it. But jews, in his opinion, and he would cite the old testament, hated to do work. And this stems from their lack of respect for community. According to jews the great sin that egyptians committed against them was forcing them to work...and the great promise of their religion was to no longer require work. Hitler felt this was an alien and distasteful attitude.

I read Mein Kampf years ago, and I have read Shirer quite a bit (for a Jew perspective on the third reich).

my favorite passage from Mein kampf

57 - Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? If you cut even cautiously into such an abscess, you found, like a maggot in a rotting body, often dazzled by the sudden light- A ******! 

•  

 

SJConspirator » 04 Sep 2022, 12:07 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:07 am

well Germany is only the size of a average U.S. state.  It is about scale, but also about genetic similarity.  Socialism fails spectacularly when it is applied to a very large, diverse group

Very much agree.  I was surprised to find out my girlfriends children were not taught anything about socialism in school (though they had been convinced it was the bee's knees).  In order to teach them about socialism I offered to pay 20$ to clean the living room.  My 10 year old daughter volunteered vigorously.  She cleaned it meticulously and came for her pay.  I paid her 4$ and each of her 4 siblings 4$.  When she objected, declaring she did the work alone without their input I explained we are going to operate under a socialist system.  It does not matter who does the work, everyone gets equal pay.  As the tears welled up in her eyes I told her, well tomorrow I will pay 20$ to have the bathrooms cleaned.  So if one of your siblings cleans the bathrooms you will get another 4$.  So if they all apply themselves as you have you will benefit.  "Who wants to clean the bathroom tomorrow?"  Crickets!  I of course then paid her the 20$.  But they never forgot what socialism is and why it doesn't work.  I explained to her, you think socialism is bad when you're dealing with just the size of your family?  Imagine how little you would have gotten if I split it just among the 200 people in the neighborhood.  Any attempt to increase your earnings would have netted you 10 cents.  And what about at the municipal or national level.  Under socialism there is no hope.  Nothing but despair.  No amount of effort on your part to improve your lot in life results in more than a 1000th of a penny's worth of reward.  It definitely does fail with scale very quickly.
 

Hitler used his cult of personality to appeal to Germany's patriotism. Small tribes in Africa who essentially practice a small form of Socialism (Hillary's "It takes a village") use a similar method of social standing for those who provide for the village to a larger extent.

Of course the issues with Hitler went well beyond his economics.  Any system which includes as one of it's tenets mass extermination is to be rejected.  All totalitarian systems are vulnerable to such excess of power.
 
 

FOS » 04 Sep 2022, 12:18 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:18 am

wrong. nazis were actual socialists. they viewed marxists as fake socialist, and so do i.

socialism is fundamentally about a community spirit and collaboration, as opposed to capitalism which stresses competition between individuals.

marxism was a fake ideology meant to separate socialism from anti semitism and from the natural socialist opposition to finance, which is fundamentally jewish. (thus the rothschilds were ardent supporters of marx)

i mean you can sit there and make assertions, but your own world view is full of internal contradictions while mine are not. Marx noticeably failed to attack international forms of 'capitalism' and literally only focused on national methods of wealth production. If he was going to stay true to his stupid materialist dialect then he should have done the reverse. right?

The globalist nature (and absurdity) of Marxism is revealed at the end of the Communist Manifesto, in the phrase “workers of the world unite”.  The benefits of socialism weaken as its scale of operations grows, hence Globalism is inherently anti-socialism.
Marxism was a globalist ideology from the start, globalism requires international finance.. I.e. Jews

LibDave » 03 Sep 2022, 11:48 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:48 pm

1 Capitalism -

1) capitalism: rational self interest and competition results in meritocracy. a resentment towards birthright which in its era was perfectly understandable and warranted. But it is also naive, because it fails to account for people who cheat or people who compete as nations rather than as individuals.

2) socialism: collaboration. teamwork. 100% taxation is not possible and has never happened.

3) fascist workers belonged to a single labor union, dude. This definition is incomprehensible

4) national socialism is a SUBSET of facism that focuses more on racial aspect of national identity. Kin selection is the primary focus. everything else you said is comically wrong.
 

LibDave » 04 Sep 2022, 12:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:27 am

Hitler used his cult of personality to appeal to Germany's patriotism. Small tribes in Africa who essentially practice a small form of Socialism (Hillary's "It takes a village") use a similar method of social standing for those who provide for the village to a larger extent.

hitler was a great man whose words spoke for themselves. People agreed with him because he was correct...not because he had a handsome mustache.

LibDave » 04 Sep 2022, 12:20 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:20 am

oes not matter who does the work, everyone gets equal pay.  As the tears welled up in her eyes I told her, well tomorrow I will pay 20$ to have the bathrooms cleaned.  So if one of your siblings cleans the bathrooms you will get another 4$.  So if they all apply themselves as you have you will benefit.  "Who wants to clean the bathroom tomorrow?"  Crickets!  I of course then paid her the 20$.  But they never forgot what socialism is and why it doesn't work.  I explained to her, you think socialism is bad when you're dealing with just the size of your family?  Imagine how little you would have gotten if I split it just among the 200 people in the neighborhood.  Any attempt to increase your earnings would have netted you 10 cents.  And what about at the municipal or national level.  Under socialism there is no hope.  Nothing but despair.  No amount of effort on your part to improve your lot in life results in more than a 1000th of a penny's worth of reward.  It definitely does fail with scale very quickly.

If the daughter is required to clean the living room, and her siblings are assigned to clean other rooms in the house where they all live, that is functional socialism.  If they all refuse to clean anything and the house degenerates into a filthy hovel for lack of human cooperation (self absorbed greed and individualism), that is capitalism corrupting a family unit.
 

LibDave » 03 Sep 2022, 11:55 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:55 pm

I do not profess these are the only definitions. There are a bewildering number of slightly different definitions. To make matters worse, many governments are a hybrid. For instance the US is capitalist with many examples of socialism present. Just a suggestion.  Worse still is the tendency to rename the same thing when certain systems fall out of favor.  For instance Socialism pays everyone an equal wage.  Progressivism by contrast taxes all income above the average and redistributes it to all those who earn below the average until the two are indistinguishable.  See Gebhart's fairwell address.... "Our goal is to take from the Haves and give to the havenots until the two are indistinguishable".  Well how is that different from just equal pay for all?  It is merely a mathematical rearrangement.

2. A very good assessment of Mein Kampf. Perhaps the best I've heard. And it is accurate for the most part. However, Hitler left out many of the more ghastly aspects of his intentions. I firmly believe that unwritten in its pages were the intention to commit unspeakable acts of murder and violence even as early as Rudolf Hess put ink to page.

you speak of hitlers 'ghastly' intentions. I dont believe it. His intentions were deportation. And i am saying that as a guy who wouldnt even care if his intentions were indeed 'ghastly'...i just think anyone who believed this holocaust hoax does not really look into the subject.

FOS » 04 Sep 2022, 12:28 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:28 am

1) capitalism: rational self interest and competition results in meritocracy. a resentment towards birthright which in its era was perfectly understandable and warranted. But it is also naive, because it fails to account for people who cheat or people who compete as nations rather than as individuals.

2) socialism: collaboration. teamwork. 100% taxation is not possible and has never happened.

3) fascist workers belonged to a single labor union, dude. This definition is incomprehensible

4) national socialism is a SUBSET of facism that focuses more on racial aspect of national identity. Kin selection is the primary focus. everything else you said is comically wrong.

Hence the difficulties with such topics.  Many differing definitions of the same thing.  The wording altered to favor one's preference.  And an audience that rarely understands any of the various systems of economics.
 

LibDave » 04 Sep 2022, 12:32 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 12:32 am

Hence the difficulties with such topics.  Many differing definitions of the same thing.  The wording altered to favor one's preference.  And an audience that rarely understands any of the various systems of economics.

it is not merely preference. wise people construct wise definitions.