Post: #101

The Catholic Church wants more Mexican immigrants in the US because it means more money and attendance for their flagging churches.

If Mexicans weren't Catholic (83.9% of Mexicans self-identify as Catholic) you wouldn't see a lot of advocacy for open borders from them.

Post: #102

(11-11-2014 02:07 PM)mikado Wrote:  That unique Islam region you are advocating does not exist
Because we do not define ourselves by religion only, but also by our roots, the country we are living in.

I am as different from a Saudian as you are from an Asian. Even if we believe in the same God.
I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, as Senegalese and French Christian friends do. However we share a lot of values in common.
Why would I have to share a country with someone who have way different values than me?

Further, the harassment , as I said it already, is mainly not provoked by Muslims,but by people of Arab descent/ upbringing.
Why should all the other Muslims pay for that?

to finish:
Sharia is mainly advocated by Arab people (or others who had some terrorist influence, like Nigeria/Boko Haram)
The rest follow their laic country's law.
Why do you want us to believe that all Muslims want Sharia?

If you are a Muslim of African descent, I believe you deserve to live in a homogenous country of other Muslims of African descent. If you are a Muslim of Arab descent, you deserve to live a country that is likewise comprised of people like you. This is especially important for Muslims because the legal system is properly a part of the Islamic faith, which is something that is incompatible with Western tradition. So everyone is better served by separation.

Europe is traditionally a place populated by white Christians. Black and Arab Muslims have no place there, anymore than European Christians have in Mecca and Medina.

This has nothing to do with hatred or racial supremacy, it's simply recognizing, "Hey, we have very different ideas about how best to organize society. Instead of unsuccessfully trying to compromise, which makes both of us unhappy, why don't we each have our own countries and governments?"

Post: #103

(11-11-2014 02:01 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I don't have anything against Muslims, have lots of Turkish friends and live next to a country of peaceful Muslim people, but I gotta say that "You have absolutely no right to apply your personal view about the "true Islam" to everyone else." is quite a weak argument. Muslims simply do have a deserved bad rap in some places, and personal views or not, that's just not going to change. Isn't it better to just peacefully point out that you're not like them?

Yeah, because the majority of that rep comes from the Middle East/Maghreb guys.
Traditionnally, even when they were still polytheist, they have been prone to racism, violence, imposing themselves to others. Look no further than what they did to Black Africa.

Whereas even in the polytheist era in Africa for example, hospitality and respect has always been the norm.

Some countries, especialy in Africa, have been combining Islam with their very own values, and produced a moderate religion. This is why you still can be imprisoned in Morocco if they see you eating during Ramadan, whereas no one will say anything against you in Senegal/ Cap-Vert.

The sad thing is that Islam comes mainly from Middle East, so by default we are associated to them. And they are still a majority, for the moment.

I understand where you are coming from. I hope you understand now where I -personally- am coming from too.

Post: #104

(11-11-2014 02:23 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 02:07 PM)mikado Wrote:  That unique Islam region you are advocating does not exist
Because we do not define ourselves by religion only, but also by our roots, the country we are living in.

I am as different from a Saudian as you are from an Asian. Even if we believe in the same God.
I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, as Senegalese and French Christian friends do. However we share a lot of values in common.
Why would I have to share a country with someone who have way different values than me?

Further, the harassment , as I said it already, is mainly not provoked by Muslims,but by people of Arab descent/ upbringing.
Why should all the other Muslims pay for that?

to finish:
Sharia is mainly advocated by Arab people (or others who had some terrorist influence, like Nigeria/Boko Haram)
The rest follow their laic country's law.
Why do you want us to believe that all Muslims want Sharia?

If you are a Muslim of African descent, I believe you deserve to live in a homogenous country of other Muslims of African descent. If you are a Muslim of Arab descent, you deserve to live a country that is likewise comprised of people like you. This is especially important for Muslims because the legal system is properly a part of the Islamic faith, which is something that is incompatible with Western tradition. So everyone is better served by separation.

Europe is traditionally a place populated by white Christians. Black and Arab Muslims have no place there, anymore than European Christians have in Mecca and Medina.

This has nothing to do with hatred or racial supremacy, it's simply recognizing, "Hey, we have very different ideas about how best to organize society. Instead of unsuccessfully trying to compromise, which makes both of us unhappy, why don't we each have our own countries and governments?"

Because of the globalization intermingling, and the still present impacts of colonization, it is just impossible to adopt that state of simplicity.
Colonization especially, has influed on our culture.
The European and American poets and figures have inspired us too.
Even if you don't like it, the West has too much influenced the African perceptions. Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents have lived/fought for/ worked for the West, and have adopted its ideas. We GREW UP with these ideas. How can we just forget it all, when it has shaped our lives for so long?

It would be like asking Black people in the US to go back to Africa. It is just impossible to do it, just like that. Because there ancesters(and thus, them) were SHAPED by American values and history.

You cannot tell someone "go back to your country and live with these randos from the same religion(but with different celebrations, different opinions on marriage, racism, ideas etc) " when THEIR COUNTRY IS THE SAME AS YOURS, scorpion.

Post: #105

delete

Post: #106

(11-11-2014 02:09 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Defining morality as "That which causes maximum human flourishment in the long run" obviously begs the questions, "For what humans? And what do you define as flourishment?" Would it be moral for white people to exterminate all non-white people off the face of the Earth? Would that not ensure that white people continue to flourish? Does that make it moral? Would it be moral for a superintelligent AI to kill off 95% of humanity in order that the remaining 5% might "flourish"? Or what if I have a farm, and a group of roving nomads without food decides they are entitled to mine? Do I have the right to defend myself, or does their right to sustenance trump my right to property since they are the greater mass of humanity ("maximum flourishment")?

Well I never argue over PM since that would be pointless, neither of us will budge our position, but the debate could nudge others one way or the other.

But basically you touch on some dark stuff there, which is a part of human nature. Ultimately though the Ghengis Khan method of flourishment is not something that supposedly moral religions have avoided - the age of crusades and jihads proved that.
Both Christianity and Islam have enjoyed part of their spread through bloodshed. Why is Christianity the major religion in Mexico and the rest of Latin America? Is it because the Spaniards politely offered the Aztecs a few bibles to read? Or was it because they rendered upon them one of the most brutal and callous wipe-out-and-rape campaigns in history? I submit that Christianity failed miserably to prevent this, and in the end greatly benefited from it.

Indeed Muslim expansion into Europe etc is fitting to this age old 'colonialism' instinct. 'Grow by moving into new territories'.

It is interesting that Europeans moving in bulk into North Africa or the Middle East would be called 'colonialism' (bad), but Muslim migration into Europe is 'multiculturalism' (good). The Left are experts at anti-rational language manipulation.

Post: #107

(11-11-2014 02:10 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  That seems highly questionable. The societies that have managed to preserve to some extent ethnicity-based national identities and citizenship are non-Christian (e.g., Korea, Japan, China). And at least in the US Christians, especially Catholics, have been consistent proponents of open borders and redistribution of wealth to migrants. Christianity and leftism are VERY compatible.

Asian countries have nothing to do with the West. Christianity was never a part of Asian culture, so obviously the decline of Christianity has no impact on them. They have their own traditions and religious beliefs to support them. My point is that Christianity served as the immune system of Western culture, and without it the West became defenseless against subversive ideologies and general cultural rot.

And as Sawyer pointed out, Christianity is only compatible with leftism to the extent that leftism has infiltrated Christianity. True Christianity, which was mainstream in the West until a few decades ago, is all but extinct. Modern organized Christianity has been almost completely overrun by charlatans and subversives. For example, the Bible is very clear that women should not be allowed in the ministry, and that homosexuality should be strongly condemned. And yet in some denominations of Christian churches today you can find homosexual female pastors! I could write an extremely long post on this topic, but suffice to say that what most people recognize as Christianity today in the West is an absolute shell of its former self.

Post: #108

Another overlooked aspect of this is the "brain drain" effect on the native country the immigrant comes from. Generous immigration policies in Europe will devastate the chance a poor country has for future success, as the brightest minds - doctors, engineers, educators - relocate to the West.

So what we're essentially doing is helping 10 people by bringing them in, while hurting 50 by taking the smartest among them and preventing the society from making technological or social progress. We've violated the natural evolution of cultures and civilizations, a form of natural selection that ultimately weeds out negative behaviors within a society and keeps the good ones. Look at Europe as an example - it took complete destruction for them to not only peacefully co-exist, but work together as a uniform entity.

Post: #109

As much as I agree with the general consensus here, I think Mikado might be onto something. It isn't necessarily Islam that's causing most of the unrest in the European countries. That's just a mask. Dig a little deeper and see the face behind most of the fundamentalism that plagues not only the West, but also parts of Central Asia and SEA.

A good amount of the fundamentalism, unrest, international discrepancy, etc, has origins in the Middle East (mostly, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar). If you look at the Islamic philosophy that fuels the machine of intolerance, you can trace it back to a scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), who preached a radicalized agenda that was revitalized by scholars of the 19th century wanting to return to a "pure" Islam. This scholar influenced others such as Muhammad al-Wahhab (where Wahhabism comes from), Rashid Rida, Muhammad Abduh, and others (note: the last three scholars mentioned are attributed to Salafism, which didn't start off "bad" per se. Rather, individuals after these guys took their ideas and made them fanatical (Qutbism for example).

Majority of the terrorism you see around the world stems from this region. Doesn't matter the color of skin, culture, or nationality. Look behind the mask.

These terrorists are funded vis-a-vis large Muslim charities and "private donors". Where does majority (if not all of this money) come from? You guessed it.

Who are the citizens causing the most ruckus? Where are they coming from? You guessed it.

Where are the Western countries/corporations getting their natural resources from and who are they in bed with? You guessed it.

As far as what type of immigrant should be let in, that's a question the European electorate will have to answer. Japan has somewhat it figured out. I don't think you can have one large brush stroke and sway one way or the other. Just because the family was born in an area two steps away from shit, doesn't mean they don't have the right to provide for their loved ones. At the same time, if they do not contribute to the country (via economically, socially, etc) and just continually suck up resources without contributing a red cent, they're gone. No questions asked. Zero tolerance. Coming into a country to improve your life situation is a PRIVILEGE and should be treated as such. If they don't see it that way, then sorry Charlie, we'll give the opportunity to someone else. Companies that hire these people for cheap labor also have to be held accountable. You want cheap peasants to work in your manufacturing divisions? Great, I hope they are contributing to make our land better. If not, they're gone. Profit margins be damned.

In my humblest opinion, reformed immigration legislation needs to happen like this:

Quote:Welcome to [Insert West European country here]. You have 6-12 months to find active employment. We are putting you on a plan where we check how you're doing in terms of welfare. The goal is to get you work, a home, medical benefits, and anything else you may need to provide a better life for you and your family. However, if we see not progress within that time, or hear that you've been trying to/are milk the system. You are gone, no questions asked.

That's the short term solution.

Long term solution (which is a stretch, but hear me out)...

Improve technological research, finding a way to cut off the oil teat that constantly supplies/funds the region where most global insurgency comes from. Before anyone gave a shit about oil, the only thing the Middle East had of interest to the rest of the world was precious stones. Stop fat cat oil tycoons (who don't give a flying fuck about anything outside of their bank statements) from blocking any other forms of alternative energy, and invest in pioneers like Elon Musk and others. Cut off the Middle Eastern financial sector, and get Western interests out of the affairs of the Islamosphere. Once the global consensus agrees that oil and natural gas are relics of the past, the Middle East will retreat back to obscurity.

Sorry, oil sands guys

Post: #110

(11-11-2014 01:58 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Then why are Muslims the only religious group, aside from Orthodox Jews, who choose to display their religion through clothing or appearance when they are in the minority?

Not true – have you heard of Sikhs or the Amish?

(11-11-2014 01:58 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  You can probably count on one hand the number of Muslim men without beards in the entire world.

A LOT of Muslim men are clean shaven. Walk into a heavily Islamic area like Luton in UK and most guys are clean shaven.

Post: #111

(11-11-2014 12:35 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  I am completely serious.

100% serious. Hitler was doing no more than what Quintus is advocating.

The ethos that won WW2 is that homogenous nations of people attached to their land means gas chambers and lampshades. A mix of humanity incapable of forming an ethnic identity so they can be properly used as instruments of international usury means no gas chambers or lampshades.

People having a nation equals bars of soap.

It's outrageous.

I think you're misunderstanding Quintus's point-- it's not about race like it was in Nazi Germany, it's about Western Civilization. Although race is a reality, it's not a huge deal and rallying point like the Nazis made it to be. I'd rather have a intelligent, Western black guy as a friend than a Japanophile, loser white guy.

Post: #112

(11-11-2014 02:34 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 02:09 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Defining morality as "That which causes maximum human flourishment in the long run" obviously begs the questions, "For what humans? And what do you define as flourishment?" Would it be moral for white people to exterminate all non-white people off the face of the Earth? Would that not ensure that white people continue to flourish? Does that make it moral? Would it be moral for a superintelligent AI to kill off 95% of humanity in order that the remaining 5% might "flourish"? Or what if I have a farm, and a group of roving nomads without food decides they are entitled to mine? Do I have the right to defend myself, or does their right to sustenance trump my right to property since they are the greater mass of humanity ("maximum flourishment")?

Well I never argue over PM since that would be pointless, neither of us will budge our position, but the debate could nudge others one way or the other.

But basically you touch on some dark stuff there, which is a part of human nature. Ultimately though the Ghengis Khan method of flourishment is not something that supposedly moral religions have avoided - the age of crusades and jihads proved that.
Both Christianity and Islam have enjoyed part of their spread through bloodshed. Why is Christianity the major religion in Mexico and the rest of Latin America? Is it because the Spaniards politely offered the Aztecs a few bibles to read? Or was it because they rendered upon them one of the most brutal and callous wipe-out-and-rape campaigns in history? I submit that Christianity failed miserably to prevent this, and in the end greatly benefited from it.

Indeed Muslim expansion into Europe etc is fitting to this age old 'colonialism' instinct. 'Grow by moving into new territories'.

It is interesting that Europeans moving in bulk into North Africa or the Middle East would be called 'colonialism' (bad), but Muslim migration into Europe is 'multiculturalism' (good). The Left are experts at anti-rational language manipulation.

Now you're making a bit more sense. But still not quite there. Objective morality outside of religion is bullshit. You want the true objective law?

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."

Law of the jungle. Survival of the strongest. None of this "tolerance," "diversity," and weak leftist bullshit. It's all just a bunch of weak white losers (and lets face it, leftists are overwhelmingly white) who are trying to cripple the strong white men with a bunch of nonsense.

The fact is, men are the vanguards of any civilization. They are the ones who must enforce its survival through strength and persistence. Should shit hit the fan, and it very likely will, then it is up to us as the young men of today's world to go forth and slaughter all would oppose us.

That is "objective morality," pure and simple.

Personally, I'd prefer Christianity, wouldn't you? Even if you feel Christ is a bunch of lies, those lies are perfectly good at keeping things running and maintaining order without having to kill people all the time.

Post: #113

(11-11-2014 03:31 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  Although race is a reality, it's not a huge deal and rallying point like the Nazis made it to be. I'd rather have a intelligent, Western black guy as a friend than a Japanophile, loser white guy.

Post: #114

I think you guys are getting too focused on race and religion. My points at the beginning of this thread were about civilization and wealth.

I don't subscribe to racial or religious theories of superiority or inferiority. At different periods of history, both Christianity and Islam enjoyed supremacy. In most of the Middle Ages, Islam was superiorto the Christian West. It lost that supremacy. Same thing with racial issues. Every "race" is capable of civilization, and civilization has thrived in nearly every part of the globe except the polar caps.

What I'm talking about is something else: and this is another law of history. It is the idea that wealth, softness, and weakness invites conquest. So the Germans overran the Romans; the Dorians swept into Greece; the Mongols crushed the Baghdad Caliphate; the "Aryans" of north India swept southward and conquered the native peoples there; the desert Arabs conquered the Sassanid Empire of Persia; the Moguls conquered India; and Byzantium was conquered by the Turks.

If you are weak, people will take what you have.

And as I see it, Western Europe has enjoyed decades of prosperity and ease. Wealth and comfort are (comparatively) widespread. But they lost all their martial virtues and have degenerated under the influence of cultural Marxism, a muscular religious ethos, national pride, and leftist malarkey. They have also outsourced their national defense to the US. This has corrupted and destroyed them.

So now Europe is easy prey. It has been sold out by craven politicians. If I were European, I would be furious.

So this is why I think that a nation has the right to defend itself. But remember that I could be very wrong here. Perhaps this "invasion" will somehow reinvigorate Europe with fresh stocks of blood and vitality. I truly don't know. It is possible for Christianity and Islam to coexist; they did so for centuries in Al Andalus. And they did so in the Balkans for a long time. So it is possible.

All I'm saying is that it pains me to see leftists, Marxists, and feminists dismantle the great triumphs of Western culture. To me, those things are worth fighting for.


.

Post: #115

(11-11-2014 03:56 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:31 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  Although race is a reality, it's not a huge deal and rallying point like the Nazis made it to be. I'd rather have a intelligent, Western black guy as a friend than a Japanophile, loser white guy.

Just my luck. The other guy exalts Hitler, and I'm the one who gets the shit for trying to refute the claim.

Post: #116

(11-11-2014 02:19 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The Catholic Church wants more Mexican immigrants in the US because it means more money and attendance for their flagging churches.

If Mexicans weren't Catholic (83.9% of Mexicans self-identify as Catholic) you wouldn't see a lot of advocacy for open borders from them.

The Mexicans/Hispanic illegals are being welcomed as replacements for the missing aborted, buggered and lapsed Catholics.

Post: #117

(11-11-2014 11:42 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The Oppressing Leftists is not a solution.
Force is met by force, debate ceases to have effect, and the winner who emerges is a tyrant.

Leftism succeeds largely because it is simplistic and divisive. It is easy to preach and easy to use to pit people against each other. It is wrong, but not obviously so to a simple mind, and sufficiently difficult to disprove. In a democratic society, this is a source of power for those who seek it.
A Rightist on the other hand, has to explain how the world actually works, which takes effort and an open mind for the listener to understand.

The Right has only one recourse, to appeal to reason, and to do so as vigorously, unrelentingly, and offensively as possible.

Are you kidding me? Leftists are all followers. Jail and kill the heads and all of the rest will fall into silence. Blame the feminists for x,y,and z and keep the heat on until it becomes fact. Heck you don't even need to kill anyone, just jail them. Lead with logic, terror, and national pride just like another certain group of people in the 40s.

All it needs is a war or some event where the failure can be blamed on morale. Blame the leftists and feminists as backstabbers.

Post: #118

(11-11-2014 03:59 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I think you guys are getting too focused on race and religion. My points at the beginning of this thread were about civilization and wealth.

I don't subscribe to racial or religious theories of superiority or inferiority. At different periods of history, both Christianity and Islam enjoyed supremacy. In most of the Middle Ages, Islam was superiorto the Christian West. It lost that supremacy. Same thing with racial issues. Every "race" is capable of civilization, and civilization has thrived in nearly every part of the globe except the polar caps.

What I'm talking about is something else: and this is another law of history. It is the idea that wealth, softness, and weakness invites conquest. So the Germans overran the Romans; the Dorians swept into Greece; the Mongols crushed the Baghdad Caliphate; the "Aryans" of north India swept southward and conquered the native peoples there; the desert Arabs conquered the Sassanid Empire of Persia; the Moguls conquered India; and Byzantium was conquered by the Turks.

Quintus, you're absolutely right, but the key to confronting the issue beyond simply acknowledging it is first identifying who exactly the threats are and what motivations they have. History has demonstrated repeatedly that people of diverse ethnic/religious backgrounds are capable of living together in peace, but only when both sides adhere to a uniform code of morality, and only when the assimilating group (in the case of immigration) is willing to make certain cultural concessions in order for society to function together as a single entity.

In the United States, capitalism and nationalism are two cohesive ideologies; in Europe, ethnic homogeneity is more profound in its ability to unite people. But regardless if a society is ethnically homogenous or ethnically diverse, like an automobile or any piece of machinery, it can only function when all of the individual components are working together in unison.

Wealth is only one part of the problem. It's unfortunate and harsh, but progress in stopping or reversing this decline can only begin when all contributing factors - including race and religion - are taken into account.

Post: #119

^^^
Good point, and well said, Blick.

Post: #120

(11-11-2014 04:01 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:56 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:31 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  Although race is a reality, it's not a huge deal and rallying point like the Nazis made it to be. I'd rather have a intelligent, Western black guy as a friend than a Japanophile, loser white guy.

Just my luck. The other guy exalts Hitler, and I'm the one who gets the shit for trying to refute the claim.

Post: #121

Quote:I think you're misunderstanding Quintus's point-- it's not about race like it was in Nazi Germany, it's about Western Civilization. Although race is a reality, it's not a huge deal and rallying point like the Nazis made it to be. I'd rather have a intelligent, Western black guy as a friend than a Japanophile, loser white guy.

Although it appears so I do not in any way believe QC agrees with my position. QC was advocating a retaking of Western Countries by their citizenry and I was simply saying that was what Hitler was doing, and that the idea that Western Nations have a right to exist as homogenous entities with boundaries was basically defeated in WW2 by the communists, who the western world aided.

So when we talk about taking back Sweden we are talking about doing what Hitler tried to do for Germany. The fact that there may be many blacks and Muslims supporting a Swedish leader who supports a Sweden for ethnic Swedes will be no more accepted as proof of non-Hiter status than all the Jews who fought for Hitler are used as proof of Hitler's non-Hitler status any more than the blacks at a Tea Party rally are going to be acceptable in pointing out its non-Hitler status.

All I'm saying is that Sweden can't be Swedish because Germany couldn't be German and England can't be English and France can't be France because that right was lost in WW2. And the guy trying to prevent such a tragedy was Hitler. And I personally cannot imagine a more evil construct than the Tower of Babel the victors of WW2 have forced us to create. It has been such an absolutely criminal waste of time, money, energy, moral and ethnic capital, decency, common sense and humanity it is hard to fathom. And if Sweden wants to put a bit more energy into being Sweden instead? Dream on my little Swedish Hitlers.

Post: #122

Well at least Sweden with Jimmie Åkesson can deter the effects that have taken place in the past three to four decades by reducing illegal and unintegrated immigration as much as possible and putting more requirement to citizenship and such.

Post: #123

(11-11-2014 05:09 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Quote:I think you're misunderstanding Quintus's point-- it's not about race like it was in Nazi Germany, it's about Western Civilization. Although race is a reality, it's not a huge deal and rallying point like the Nazis made it to be. I'd rather have a intelligent, Western black guy as a friend than a Japanophile, loser white guy.

Although it appears so I do not in any way believe QC agrees with my position. QC was advocating a retaking of Western Countries by their citizenry and I was simply saying that was what Hitler was doing, and that the idea that Western Nations have a right to exist as homogenous entities with boundaries was basically defeated in WW2 by the communists, who the western world aided.

So when we talk about taking back Sweden we are talking about doing what Hitler tried to do for Germany. The fact that there may be many blacks and Muslims supporting a Swedish leader who supports a Sweden for ethnic Swedes will be no more accepted as proof of non-Hiter status than all the Jews who fought for Hitler are used as proof of Hitler's non-Hitler status any more than the blacks at a Tea Party rally are going to be acceptable in pointing out its non-Hitler status.

All I'm saying is that Sweden can't be Swedish because Germany couldn't be German and England can't be English and France can't be France because that right was lost in WW2. And the guy trying to prevent such a tragedy was Hitler. And I personally cannot imagine a more evil construct than the Tower of Babel the victors of WW2 have forced us to create. It has been such an absolutely criminal waste of time, money, energy, moral and ethnic capital, decency, common sense and humanity it is hard to fathom. And if Sweden wants to put a bit more energy into being Sweden instead? Dream on my little Swedish Hitlers.

I'm sick and tired of your Hitler apologia. All Hitler cared about was the glory of Hitler and murdering anyone who opposed his regime. National Socialism was a wicked ideology led and championed by a wicked man.

You can be a nationalist leader without being an egomaniacal mass-murdering psychopath.

And just so you're clear on my position here, I don't believe everything the allies did during the war was right. They did a lot of wicked things too. Like allying with Stalin, bombing Dresden, terror bombing, etc. etc.

Both Mussolini and Franco were less loathsome than that piece of trash, who was so craven that he shot himself rather than fighting for what he claimed to believe in. He had no problem sending millions of German boys to the front to fight and die but he didn't have the guts to shoot it out with the Soviets as they were closing in.

The fact that he was anti-Stalin and anti-Communist doesn't automatically make him a good person anyone should hold up as a hero.

He and the war he caused is as much responsible for the troubles Germany faces today as the cultural marxists are.

They brought in the Turks and other Muslims after the war because they lost a lot of their labor base.

He also made it easy for the left to turn nationalism into a dirty word.

To hell with Hitler.

Post: #124

^^^That's fair. I just don't understand why, if something good won WW2, it has seemingly destroyed everything decent since.

Post: #125

(11-11-2014 04:29 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 04:01 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:56 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 03:31 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  Although race is a reality, it's not a huge deal and rallying point like the Nazis made it to be. I'd rather have a intelligent, Western black guy as a friend than a Japanophile, loser white guy.

Just my luck. The other guy exalts Hitler, and I'm the one who gets the shit for trying to refute the claim.

OH! I'm talking about the fat losers who jerk off to all that anime bullshit. Not actual Japanese women. I love me some Eastern Cuisine myself, if you know what I mean.