What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?

IBDaMann said:
You are fighting tooth and nail to EVADE the central planning and control. Whether there was some independent ownership is not relevant. Was there State control and planning of the industries?
Click to expand...

The simple answer is no. Nearly all of the industries were allowed to run themselves as they wanted.
Did the state have the power to force regulations much like we have in America? Sure. But that's not the same as the state being in control of industry. The bottom line is that even if they could have nationalized all industry, which we agree they could have, they did not.
This wasn't Socialism by any stretch unless you're using the Fox News definition.

Again, I gave you two in-depth studies on the Nazi German economy. You're repeating incorrect information with no sources, while I'm giving you sources.

Yes you did. Please note the quotation marks:

"The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government."

You quoted this while we were discussing Marx's socialism, but Marx did not write this. Every quote I have given you has come directly from Marx.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

This was a quote from one of the studies, which I guess you didn't even look at.

If I tell you that it's raining outside my window right now, who are you to tell me that it isn't? I am not trying to convince you that Wikipedia is run by Marxists; you are trying to convince me that it is not. Since you acknowledge that you know nothing of the Wikipedia staff then you shouldn't be trying to convince me that my personal experience is somehow flawed.
Click to expand...

So basically, you're making a claim that you have no way of backing up.

I wish I didn't still have to say this, but if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.
 
StoneByStone said:
I think the Vikings, Prussians, and Nazis did a pretty good job showing that Germanic peoples can be tough. This would probably be more of a result of modern Germanic culture. Especially considering that the English are genetically closer to the Irish than they are other Germanic peoples.
And of course, these are just individual cases.
Click to expand...

Well, honestly military warfare & hand to hand combat aren't exactly the same.

Military warfare actually takes a lot of strategy, and planning, and now-a-days a lot of money thrown into military.

Maybe Italians for example are good with hand to hand combat, but not necessarily good with strategy, and planning.

As for hand to hand combat.

Even in England, for example, most of their best (White) fighters, aren't even of English descent.

Tyson Fury is Irish Catholic.

Bisping is Polish & Irish Catholic.

Carl Froch is Polish & German.
(But, probably Prussian German) which are basically mostly Polish, anyways.

Germans are probably tougher, than English, or Scandinavians in hand to hand combat.

At least Germans have had Max Schmeling, for example.

But, then again he was an East German, who looked rather Slavic!

Similar with Henry Maske being a East German boxer, in fact the name Maske is definitely a Slavic origin surname.

Similar with Sven Ottke, another East German boxer, with a likely Slavic surname. (Usually German surnames ending in vowels are Slavic)

Germany is similar to England, in a lot of their good fighters have been non-German.

Like Klitschko brothers, were Ukrainian.

Dariusz Michalczewski was Polish.

Marco Huck was Bosniak.
 
StoneByStone said:
I think the Vikings, Prussians, and Nazis did a pretty good job showing that Germanic peoples can be tough. This would probably be more of a result of modern Germanic culture. Especially considering that the English are genetically closer to the Irish than they are other Germanic peoples.
And of course, these are just individual cases.
Click to expand...

Prussians are probably about as Germanic as the English are.

Just in different directions.

English are probably 70% Celtic & 30% Germanic. (The Eastern regions of England are maybe more like 50% Germanic & the Western regions more like 15% Germanic)

Prussians are probably 70% Balto-Slavic & 30% Germanic. (The Eastern regions of Prussia maybe up to 90% were Balto-Slavic like say around Kalligrad, and Berlin for example was probably only 30% Slavic)
 
StoneByStone said:
I think the Vikings, Prussians, and Nazis did a pretty good job showing that Germanic peoples can be tough. This would probably be more of a result of modern Germanic culture. Especially considering that the English are genetically closer to the Irish than they are other Germanic peoples.
And of course, these are just individual cases.
Click to expand...

Sweden actually used to be good in warfare even in the 1600's.

They killed millions of German Catholics in the 30 year war & they killed millions of Polish Catholics in the Deluge.

Then again, they used other powers as a wedge to do so.

For example, in Poland, Sweden had much help from directly Russia, and also at the same time the Cossacks & Tatars.

As for the 30 Year War, it was a huge German civil war & many other powers joined too.
 
StoneByStone said:
I think the Vikings, Prussians, and Nazis did a pretty good job showing that Germanic peoples can be tough. This would probably be more of a result of modern Germanic culture. Especially considering that the English are genetically closer to the Irish than they are other Germanic peoples.
And of course, these are just individual cases.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not impressed with English military victories.

The English channel saved them from the Spanish Armada, from Napoleon & from Hitler.

As for the British colonies they mostly attacked savages without guns,, it never was a fair fight.

But, I know 400 Poles & 57 French forces beat 3,500 British & 1,000 Spanish forces in the Battle of Fuengirola in 1810.

So, I'm going to call the "British military supremacy" a bluff.

I think it's mostly idiots, who believe British people are the best of all time in military battles.

I think if you took away the English channel, they would've likely been enslaved by Spaniards, Napoleon's French & Germans in 2 World wars,for example.

Also note in the Irish War of Independence 19,000 Irish forces beat 35,000 British forces.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Prussians are probably about as Germanic as the English are.

Just in different directions.

English are probably 70% Celtic & 30% Germanic. (The Eastern regions of England are maybe more like 50% Germanic & the Western regions more like 15% Germanic)

Prussians are probably 70% Balto-Slavic & 30% Germanic. (The Eastern regions of Prussia maybe up to 90% were Balto-Slavic like say around Kalligrad, and Berlin for example was probably only 30% Slavic)
Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated. A pretty small minority of Germanics immigrated to England. The reason the English are a Germanic people today is because this small minority took over and Anglicized the Celts. So even if we say the Eastern English are 50% Germanic, we're still talking about a people that is genetically more similar to the other British people than they are to anyone in Germanic Europe. That's why when it comes to genetic populations, it can be misleading going by culture, national boundaries, and language. Although, all of those things do matter sometimes, since they keep people from freely migrating.

So yeah, with all that being said, because the vast majority of English genes are native to England, the English are genetically more similar to the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and Scots-Irish. Even though they are culturally a Germanic people.

From what I've read, modern East Germans are around 20% Slavic. For the original East Prussian people, it's probably a lot more, since their original language was Baltic and they were situated in Poland. I don't know how much admixture was in the entire Prussian German population, but I'm guessing they were overwhelmingly German. Especially since Berlin was always a huge spot for migration, which is why a High German dialect replaced the local dialect.
 
StoneByStone said:
It's a little more complicated. A pretty small minority of Germanics immigrated to England. The reason the English are a Germanic people today is because this small minority took over and Anglicized the Celts. So even if we say the Eastern English are 50% Germanic, we're still talking about a people that is genetically more similar to the other British people than they are to anyone in Germanic Europe. That's why when it comes to genetic populations, it can be misleading going by culture, national boundaries, and language. Although, all of those things do matter sometimes, since they keep people from freely migrating.

So yeah, with all that being said, because the vast majority of English genes are native to England, the English are genetically more similar to the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and Scots-Irish. Even though they are culturally a Germanic people.

From what I've read, modern East Germans are around 20% Slavic. For the original East Prussian people, it's probably a lot more, since their original language was Baltic and they were situated in Poland. I don't know how much admixture was in the entire Prussian German population, but I'm guessing they were overwhelmingly German. Especially since Berlin was always a huge spot for migration, which is why a High German dialect replaced the local dialect.
Click to expand...

Maybe this Haplogroup map will clear things up.

https://www.deviantart.com/arminius1871/art/Germanic-Y-DNA-combined-haplogroups-510595218

Then again, it's difficult to see what Y-Haplogroups are Germanic, and not.

The way they did this, was including some R1b & R1a variants, common in some Germanic populations.

But, I1a haplogroup is far higher in Norse, than Anglo-Saxons for example.

To make it more confusing, I1a probably weren't Germanic initially, but may have spoke a different language, perhaps like Basque, or maybe not.

I'm betting LBK culture with I1a haplogroup were non-Germanic speakers, and R1a haplogroup Indo-Europeans from the Cordedware culture founded the Battle Axe culture likely Proto-Germanic, by a mix of LBK & Cordedware.

But, this is much speculation, on my part.

As for R1b it also might not be Indo-European, or might be.

R1b haplogroup for example is super high in Basque, a non-Indo-European speaking people.

PS.
LBK were very violent.

They brought the first genocides to Europe.

Like the Talheim death pit.

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

Maybe that explains Germanic violence?
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Maybe this Haplogroup map will clear things up.

https://www.deviantart.com/arminius1871/art/Germanic-Y-DNA-combined-haplogroups-510595218

Then again, it's difficult to see what Y-Haplogroups are Germanic, and not.

The way they did this, was including some R1b & R1a variants, common in some Germanic populations.

But, I1a haplogroup is far higher in Norse, than Anglo-Saxons for example.

To make it more confusing, I1a probably weren't Germanic initially, but may have spoke a different language, perhaps like Basque, or maybe not.

I'm betting LBK culture with I1a haplogroup were non-Germanic speakers, and R1a haplogroup Indo-Europeans from the Cordedware culture founded the Battle Axe culture likely Proto-Germanic, by a mix of LBK & Cordedware.

But, this is much speculation, on my part.

As for R1b it also might not be Indo-European, or might be.

R1b haplogroup for example is super high in Basque, a non-Indo-European speaking people.

PS.
LBK were very violent.

They brought the first genocides to Europe.

Like the Talheim death pit.

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

Maybe that explains Germanic violence?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, there are Germanic genes that are way more common in the English population than other parts of the British Isles. But the overall English genetic make-up is much more like their neighbors than any people in mainland Europe.
 
StoneByStone said:
It's a little more complicated. A pretty small minority of Germanics immigrated to England. The reason the English are a Germanic people today is because this small minority took over and Anglicized the Celts. So even if we say the Eastern English are 50% Germanic, we're still talking about a people that is genetically more similar to the other British people than they are to anyone in Germanic Europe. That's why when it comes to genetic populations, it can be misleading going by culture, national boundaries, and language. Although, all of those things do matter sometimes, since they keep people from freely migrating.

So yeah, with all that being said, because the vast majority of English genes are native to England, the English are genetically more similar to the Welsh, Scots, Irish, and Scots-Irish. Even though they are culturally a Germanic people.

From what I've read, modern East Germans are around 20% Slavic. For the original East Prussian people, it's probably a lot more, since their original language was Baltic and they were situated in Poland. I don't know how much admixture was in the entire Prussian German population, but I'm guessing they were overwhelmingly German. Especially since Berlin was always a huge spot for migration, which is why a High German dialect replaced the local dialect.
Click to expand...

There's a Y-Haplogroup study here on East Prussians.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10956-Old-Prussian-ancestry-of-East-Prussians

Apparently the East Prussians were 46% R1a, compare to 24% R1a with East Germans, 41% for Lithuanians, and 56% for Poles.

The East Prussians were 15% R1b, compare to 36% for East Germans, 4% for Lithuanians, and 12% for Poles.

The East Prussians were 22% N haplogroup, compare to 1% for East Germans, 40% for Lithuanians & 4% for Poles.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

From that information, it would appear 20% of East Prussian DNA was East German, 40% Lithuanian, & 40% Polish.
 
StoneByStone said:
Oh yeah, there are Germanic genes that are way more common in the English population than other parts of the British Isles. But the overall English genetic make-up is much more like their neighbors than any people in mainland Europe.
Click to expand...

It's very likely that English are a mix of Welsh & Dutch, with hints of French & Viking.

While, Scottish are a mix of Welsh & Irish, with a bit more Norwegian, and quite less Dutch than the English.

It might be kind of confusing, but the Picts the indigenous Scots might have been a Northern Welsh like people.

That Irish Galiec speakers conquered the Picts.

Then Norwegians & Northern English conquered Scotland.

Ireland too might have some Germanic DNA, as that study concludes, that Dublin & other portions of Eastern Ireland due to Viking invaders & Northern Ireland (Not surprising due to Scottish Lowland invaders)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Only for the far Right and it's normal for the far Left too. That's the problem with extremists: they're extreme.

Sent from Mount Doom using the One Ring
Click to expand...
Actually it's normal for most of the right, as the righties here keep demonstrating.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
IBDaWoMann said:
This is an attempt to shift the goalposts into irrelevancy.

Show me that Herman Goering did not have complete, centralized control of industry. I don't care how he implemented complete, centralized control, show me that there wasn't central planning and control.



You are quibbling that when Goering seized businesses that the State was not the owner at that point. Absurd.


Yes you did. Nowhere in any volume of Das Kapital does the term "direct democracy" appear. You invented that term.


Nope. Your claims are debunked in my sig. I clearly reviewed every point with you and the only ones you dispute are those in which you have invented your own terms and are attempting to redefine socialism.

Where we stand is that your claim is ridiculously absurd, i.e. that the National Socialists who had complete centralized planning and control, who were checking off the boxes in the Communist Manifesto, somehow weren't socialist. When the textbook socialist nature of NAZI Germany is recounted to you, you simply point irrelevant trivia about how Goering told owners of the businesses he seized that they were still the owners.

Then we look at your motives for making such absurd statements, i.e. you don't want to be identified as being a NAZI ... because you accuse Trump of that ... because you have extreme TDS. It seems your greatest fear is facing the realization that Trump is a great President and you are the NAZI. You are the one who wants to unfairly confiscate all the wealth from the Jews ... ummm, sorry, from the evil 1%. You are the one who doesn't want parents having control over what their children learn because you want to ensure all youth receive the Hitler Youth indoctrination and are raised with the party line mentality.

This is where we stand until you can provide some logical, authoritative rationale otherwise:

You are a socialist.
NAZI Germany was socialist.
Trump has never lied and never fallen short in the execution of his official duties as President.
Democrats are the party of slavery and as we shall see in California, Republicans were and are the party of civil rights.



You write that like you are pretending to be an authority on the people who run Wikipedia. So go ahead, explain how you just such an authority.

You are in for some well-deserved mockery. You are naive and gullible. Wikipedia is run by Marxists and now I know where you get your disinformation. This is going to be another souce of fun for you and me.
Click to expand...
There doesn't appear to be anyone at JPP who is as naive and gullible as you are, and that's saying a lot. You are also deeply paranoid, to the point of living in constant delusion and denial. You are the one with TDS, totally deranged in your worship of Trump, and totally unable to see any of the truth about Trump. Trump is, without question, the worst President in U.S. history. He has, almost single handedly, turned what would have been a fairly nasty flu season into a national disaster. Trump has always lied and has never stood up and performed his duties as President. He's nothing more than a con man and you are one of his stooges. Again, "Marxist" is just your epithet for anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's really all you've got on your side.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Jews have only gotten worse, and worse.

Meanwhile, Western Europeans have only accepted them more & more.

That's not necessarily true for Eastern Europeans.

For example, in the 20th & 21st centuries Poles, Lithuanians & Hungarians were arguably far more anti-Semitic, than they were in the 14th - 19th centuries.

Eastern Europeans just seem to be more rational people.

Which, I think this chart on Thinking vs Feeling proves it too well.

https://www.16personalities.com/country-profiles/global/europe
Click to expand...
Anti-semitism appears to be based more on jealousy than reason. You're just jealous because Jews tend to be more capable than you are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
WitoldPilecki said:
I'm actually 4th generation Polish-American, and my father is 3rd generation Polish-American.

My father, like myself in many ways sound more Polish, than American.

For example, both of us don't like Jews, or Muslims, very much.

My dad has been qouted saying "Muslims & Jews are incompitable with Western civilization, they are both stubborn & aggressive Semitic peoples"

My dad has been qouted saying "Jews aren't his kind of people, they never have enough money, power, or control"

Although, we both support Palestinians over Israelis.

Both of us, blame Wallstreet & Companies for outsourcing & hiring H2B visas, hiring undocumented immigrants etc.

Why don't we sound all too "American"?
Click to expand...

Funny, it's a basic of capitalism that one can "never have enough money, power, or control".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
StoneByStone said:
Nope, we've already been through this. Hermann Göring had the power to centrally plan the economy, but he never chose to do so. So the economy remained Capitalist. Now if you have some evidence that the Nazi government actually did nationalize all business and have a centrally planned economy, feel free to post it.

"The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government."

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/buchheim-041020.pdf

Looks like the Nazis were even more Capitalist than other Western countries.



As much as I'd like to take credit for the term, it was actually being used back in the 18th century, which was quite a few years before I was born.
If you want to get into #semantics, sure, Marx didn't actually use the words "Direct Democracy" or "Direkte Demokratie." But the way he described how the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" would function is what we would today describe as a form of Direct Democracy.




I've literally never called Trump a Nazi, so I have no idea where you're getting this from.
The rest is just some Godwin's Law bullshit.



Source?
Click to expand...
Most likely, he felt justified in loading up Wikipedia with his absurd far right nonsense and is just pissed that Wikipedia didn't allow it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Yes, well there is little doubt, that Western Europe used to be much more prejudiced, than they are now.

That's probably not necessarily the case in much of Eastern Europe.

In Poland the younger generation are more anti-Semitic, according to this poll.

https://global100.adl.org/country/poland/2019

In Hungary the older generation is the least anti-Semitic, according to this poll.

https://global100.adl.org/country/hungary/2019

Could Testosterone play a role?

For example, Males are more anti-Semitic than Females according to this poll.

Testosterone makes people more rebellious to authority.

Maybe this is why Poles & Hungarians have been so rebellious?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10097017/

In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior intended to dominate--to enhance one's status over--other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and low breaking. M
Click to expand...
Or perhaps Eastern Europeans grew up drenched in anti-semitic Soviet propaganda.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top