The Jew in the Thorns

Probably jews were hated for their elitist, clannish and abusive attitudes towards others. I do not advocate violence against jews, just a rejection of their Olam Ha Ba politicies.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It was planned by Illuminati Families who are Jew and Gentile alike. Don't presume to speak for me, fuckknuckle.
Click to expand...
Like I said. Not kidding. He really believes that Jews participated in creating Hitler's Germany, even including death camps, just so Israel could be created.
 
God I knew once the Jew entered the story, Water was trolling the water for Anti-semetic dork fish. Great bait, landed a big one. only thing missing is "death to zog!"
 
I think the nationalism in the story is pretty bare and evident, but look closer and you can see how the socialism part plays a role - the main character who is perceived as good is a servant who was taken advantage of by his capitalist master and who then is rewarded for his charity in helping some older dwarf that didn't want to work.

Basically the hero is looked on as he who is a national socialist that cares for only his own people.

Socialism is meant to be for the benefit of the greater good, but what if (economic) times are harder and people are in a communal mindset of thinking that they need to still serve the greater good but that there is not enough for all. Then they will ostracize a group and likely the one that they demonize as having more of the resources than the mainstream.
Socialism leads to National Socialism in hard times.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I think the nationalism in the story is pretty bare and evident, but look closer and you can see how the socialism part plays a role - the main character who is perceived as good is a servant who was taken advantage of by his capitalist master and who then is rewarded for his charity in helping some older dwarf that didn't want to work.

Basically the hero is looked on as he who is a national socialist that cares for only his own people.

Socialism is meant to be for the benefit of the greater good, but what if (economic) times are harder and people are in a communal mindset of thinking that they need to still serve the greater good but that there is not enough for all. Then they will ostracize a group and likely the one that they demonize as having more of the resources than the mainstream.
Socialism leads to National Socialism in hard times.
Click to expand...

The National Socialist party started out as an attempt to combine nationalism with socialism (which had previously been an internationalist philosophy). When Hitler took control he pretty much just made it into a more radical, populist, and right wing version of the DNVP, and killed most of the national socialists.

You are, again, grasping to make everything in the world a condemnation of liberalism (which is, of course, actually socialism/communism).
 
Last edited:
What is the problem with populism? that just means being for the people. It differs from socialism in that socialism is actually fascism.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But in our modern era, socialists are actually fascists.
Click to expand...

In our modern era there are no socialists. It's just a meaningless buzzword, like conservative and liberal, in the places in which it ever held dominance. It's nothing but an insult in places where it never has.

AssHatZombie said:
You can keep dwelling on the past if you wish.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the past you fucking idiot.

AssHatZombie said:
What is your problem with populists.
Click to expand...

They manipulate the people, and play on the worst parts of human nature to produce majorities and introduce racist and other irrational philosophies.
 
Watermark said:
The National Socialist party started out as an attempt to combine nationalism with socialism (which had previously been an internationalist philosophy). When Hitler took control he pretty much just made it into a more radical, populist, and right wing version of the DNVP, and killed most of the national socialists.

You are, again, grasping to make everything in the world a condemnation of liberalism (which is, of course, actually socialism/communism).
Click to expand...

Please do not attempt to think you can pass off your history bullshit on me. Though Hitler was not a founding member of what the party was first set up as, he was still one of the party's earliest members, he was instrumental in making the party about national socialism. He did not kill most of the national socialists, the night of the long knives was all about consolidating support into the SS and away from the independence of the SA. Both national socialist factions but only the SS's primary loyalty was more to Hitler instead of Germany.

Hitler grew government, banned gun ownership, was not a tax cutter and moved social welfare administration from the church to the state. One could certainly argue he hated Communists (probably because he associated them (wrongly) so close to Jews) and that he was against rival "purer" socialists, but by viewing his policies he was certainly a national socialist.
Pretending otherwise is like pretending that if Nader became fiercely pro-American, that all of a sudden he is no longer a socialist. It's bullshit.

You have to realize young Watermark that all communal leftist philosphies preach is sacrificing your needs and wants for the needs and wants of the greater good - well did you ever stop and look through history when there is perceived to be not enough for all in that greater good? That's when socialism turns to national socialism because people start acting off an ancient instinct to stick with their own, which when coupled with the ingrained doctrine of being for the whole and not for individuals taught from socialism, means they will have to be against certain groups.
Look at a supposed pure Socialist like Chavez, he has started talking more and more as things get worse about Venezueala being for Venezuelans when he does his nationalization. Though it's not too widely reported there are even in the past few years, reports of Jews being targeted by Chavez:
http://www.forward.com/articles/12500/
 
Watermark said:
In our modern era there are no socialists. It's just a meaningless buzzword, like conservative and liberal, in the places in which it ever held dominance. It's nothing but an insult in places where it never has.



We were talking about the past you fucking idiot.



They manipulate the people, and play on the worst parts of human nature to produce majorities and introduce racist and other irrational philosophies.
Click to expand...



Im talking about philosophies in the present. You can dwell on the past if you want.

THerre's nothing inherently racist about populism, especially in a multicultural society like ours. I'd say our government was more populist oriented in the past when it cared about growing the middle class, instead of outsourcing and driving wages down to benefit the fascists and other varied elitists, including the socialists, who are actually fascists.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Hitler grew government
Click to expand...

Link?

KingCondanomation said:
banned gun ownership,
Click to expand...

Hitler's government didn't do that.

KingCondanomation said:
was not a tax cutter
Click to expand...

Yes, he was a nationalist.

KingCondanomation said:
and moved social welfare administration from the church to the state.
Click to expand...

How are you sure the Socailist administrations didn't do that? And the thought that the church gave a fuck about the poor is polyanna laughable nonsense.

KingCondanomation said:
One could certainly argue he hated Communists (probably because he associated them (wrongly) so close to Jews) and that he was against rival "purer" socialists, but by viewing his policies he was certainly a national socialist.
Click to expand...

The far right in Europe aren't economically liberal dano. They also aren't socialists. The National Front in France, in running some councils, have reinstituted social welfare policies that the Socialist administrations had abandoned. But just because you don't meet the American definition of "conservative" doesn't mean you're a liberal. There are right-collectivists just as there are left-individualists.

KingCondanomation said:
Pretending otherwise is like pretending that if Nader became fiercely pro-American, that all of a sudden he is no longer a socialist. It's bullshit.
Click to expand...

Nader isn't a socialist.

KingCondanomation said:
You have to realize young Watermark .
Click to expand...

:blah::blah::blah:

KingCondanomation said:
that all communal leftist philosphies preach is sacrificing your needs and wants for the needs and wants of the greater good - well did you ever stop and look through history when there is perceived to be not enough for all in that greater good? That's when socialism turns to national socialism because people start acting off an ancient instinct to stick with their own, which when coupled with the ingrained doctrine of being for the whole and not for individuals taught from socialism, means they will have to be against certain groups.
Look at a supposed pure Socialist like Chavez, he has started talking more and more as things get worse about Venezueala being for Venezuelans when he does his nationalization. Though it's not too widely reported there are even in the past few years, reports of Jews being targeted by Chavez:
http://www.forward.com/articles/12500/
Click to expand...


I haven't heard this speech before!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top