Neo-Nazi youths murdered boy, 17, for looking like a Jew
- Thread starter Jerrek
- Start date
Well he had me fooled, most of the time he sounds just like a right wing weirdo living out on a farm, or other rural area in the Midwestern United States, in fact I was almost sure of it.
As for the article, though, I think that we should keep German youth away from California (well most any US population centers, but California especially) if they think that bleached hair and baggy pants makes you "look like a Jew". I was not aware that that was the latest fission among Jews, didn't think it had much at all to do with religion or background at all.
As for the article, though, I think that we should keep German youth away from California (well most any US population centers, but California especially) if they think that bleached hair and baggy pants makes you "look like a Jew". I was not aware that that was the latest fission among Jews, didn't think it had much at all to do with religion or background at all.
I'm not from Europe, and I'm white, not Asian. 
Daar is geen manier vir my om dit te bewys nie. Wat wil jy hê moet ek doen? In elkgeval, ek is seker daar is mense hier wat sal verstaan wat ek hier skryf.
Instead of quoting an article that makes a statement, why don't you bring some arguments to the table?
It is.
Daar is geen manier vir my om dit te bewys nie. Wat wil jy hê moet ek doen? In elkgeval, ek is seker daar is mense hier wat sal verstaan wat ek hier skryf.
And of course BBC is the course of all knowledge in this world.
Instead of quoting an article that makes a statement, why don't you bring some arguments to the table?
Lol.
Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan were controlled by a small number of corporations, which worked as partners with the government. These corporations wielded monopoly power. The key point is that these select corporations literally became the government. Private corporations, businesses, and property in these societies were de-facto controlled by these government corporations and their partner, the government. Property was disposed of depending on what was viewed to be in the best interest of the government at any given time. The fact that my Jewish relatives were murdered in the Nazi Holocaust is proof that Nazi Germany did not respect private property.
I challenge you to demonstrate any substantive difference between the two socialisms. Besides the fact that both advocate central economic control (communism more so than fascism) both are spiritually atheist, both believe in the theory of evolution as a cornerstone of their political faith, both oppose the family (the Nazi's formed communes for racially pure men and women, the Communists viewed the family unit as a bourgeoisie affectation) both believed on a one world utopia, both slaughtered their own people to a degree unprecedented in history (the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews and millions of others, the communists killed over 100 million people in the 20th century who they viewed as not politically correct or because they stood in the way of progress).
I grant that my view on this is unconventional. My reasoning in a nutshell is as follows. The dictionary definition of socialism is a system that calls for "public ownership of the means of production." Public ownership can only mean State ownership; there is simply no other practical way for this to occur. No one is going to give up his right to ownership except by force and the only way force can be brought to bear is by government, which is, by definition, legalized force. Therefore both Nazism and Communism, in order to carry out their respective agendas, require a forceful authoritarian government since to give up property voluntarily is simply against human nature. You might say that both systems are on the left, you may say that both systems are authoritarian, take your pick.
http://www.chuckmorse.com/dialogue_with_a_leftist.html
I challenge you to demonstrate any substantive difference between the two socialisms. Besides the fact that both advocate central economic control (communism more so than fascism) both are spiritually atheist, both believe in the theory of evolution as a cornerstone of their political faith, both oppose the family (the Nazi's formed communes for racially pure men and women, the Communists viewed the family unit as a bourgeoisie affectation) both believed on a one world utopia, both slaughtered their own people to a degree unprecedented in history (the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews and millions of others, the communists killed over 100 million people in the 20th century who they viewed as not politically correct or because they stood in the way of progress).
I grant that my view on this is unconventional. My reasoning in a nutshell is as follows. The dictionary definition of socialism is a system that calls for "public ownership of the means of production." Public ownership can only mean State ownership; there is simply no other practical way for this to occur. No one is going to give up his right to ownership except by force and the only way force can be brought to bear is by government, which is, by definition, legalized force. Therefore both Nazism and Communism, in order to carry out their respective agendas, require a forceful authoritarian government since to give up property voluntarily is simply against human nature. You might say that both systems are on the left, you may say that both systems are authoritarian, take your pick.
http://www.chuckmorse.com/dialogue_with_a_leftist.html
Corporations working in partnership with the government(or becoming the government) seems to indicate that the government was controlled by business, not that property was controlled by the govt. Private property was respected for those who were in power or of the same background as those in power.
In any case, if property was disposed of in the interest of the govt which was controlled by corporations then, then property was in control of the people with the most property.
Yeah, Stalinism and Nazism have their similiarities. Communism, having never been put into practice, has not killed anybody.
state ownership is not public ownership unless the state is the public.
Government is by no means defined as legalized force, although that has been an aspect of governments in general.
The right to private ownership is not innate, it is given by the govt. Redistributing wealth so that everyone has a relatively equal amount would be beneficial to the vast majority of the worlds population. At present, private property is maintained by force. You could look at redistribution as simply removing the force which allows small numbers of people to hoard just about all the worlds resources.