I find this hypocritical...

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

Praise hitler, you are seen as anti-Semitic, racist, and evil. Praise Stalin, you are seen as a legitimate historical revisionist.

Facism =/= Nazism

Many south american dictators embraced elements of facism, fransico franco > stalin

Напишано од Unleasheds alt, 22.04.2014 at 19:00

Simple: Because hitler lost the war

Напишано од Tunder4, 23.04.2014 at 11:58

Facism =/= Nazism

Many south american dictators embraced elements of facism, fransico franco > stalin

Francisco Franco wasn't South American

Напишано од KYBL, 23.04.2014 at 12:04

Напишано од Tunder4, 23.04.2014 at 11:58

Facism =/= Nazism

Many south american dictators embraced elements of facism, fransico franco > stalin

Francisco Franco wasn't South American

Many south american dictators embraced elements of facism. fransico franco > stalin

Better?

Why don't you two get a room?

Because the Nazi regime and its actions have been seen as monstrous throughout all times since they occurred by the West, whilst the actions taken by the Soviet and Communist regimes are barely ever mentioned. Case-In-Point: Children are taught to hate Hitler, who could be compared to your average emo fuck who finally went overboard, but are never told about pyschopathic dictators like Pol Pot, Mao Zei Dong, Josef Stalin, etc etc. People are basically indoctrinated from childhood to hate Adolph Hitler, everything tied to him, and anything similar to him, and told not to question it. Look at North Korea, for an example: They're all indoctrinated to love fearless leader, no? Do they question it? Rarely, because they don't care. They accept their lives and don't wish to change it because there's no motivation. The same thing goes for here, in America, and frankly, the entire West. No one wants to change our perception of peoples-- to evolve our judgement-- because no one has the motivation to really give a shit about anything that isn't spoon-fed to them already.

Because everyone that supports socialist ideologies are automatically turned into Stalin's fans, of course.

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 22:46

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Gardevoir, let the kid be, don't you see he is playing Good Ball Boy? zombie thinks that discrediting people make him be more "right"

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 22:46

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Seriously?

Наводници:

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

OP wonders why Nazi supporters are automatically declared, amongst other things, racist?
I reply it is because National Socialism is inherently racist and because Communism is inherently NOT racist.

Now, am I crazy, or was the original post something other than above?
===
I didn't proceed with the rest of the argument because the poster is transparently trolling. There IS no question, only a statement, which I can summarize thusly:

"Liberals are hypocrites because Nazis are considered racists who killed 50 million people, but Communists killed 100 million people, but are generally accepted into society."

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society.
EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

It may argue back, to which I would reply "How can one be a libertarian AND a nationalist" and send it some links.
===
Americans are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans in the slave trade and millions of Native Americans in the Indian wars and the practices through the twentieth century - Even though our constitution and political ideologies of 'Manifest Destiny' not only legitimized the genocide, it encouraged it.
The number is pretty large, I don't know if it is 50 million, and wasn't all in 50 years, but we don't deny it *and we are really genuinely sorry about it* and, for what it was worth, at key points in history, Native Americans owned African slaves, and African Americans were involved in Native American oppression (Buffalo Soldiers).
Also, we got sensible and quit killing people off in intentional genocides, So, there's that ....

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 13:16

Because the Nazi regime and its actions have been seen as monstrous throughout all times since they occurred by the West, whilst the actions taken by the Soviet and Communist regimes are barely ever mentioned. Case-In-Point: Children are taught to hate Hitler, who could be compared to your average emo fuck who finally went overboard, but are never told about pyschopathic dictators like Pol Pot, Mao Zei Dong, Josef Stalin, etc etc. People are basically indoctrinated from childhood to hate Adolph Hitler, everything tied to him, and anything similar to him, and told not to question it. Look at North Korea, for an example: They're all indoctrinated to love fearless leader, no? Do they question it? Rarely, because they don't care. They accept their lives and don't wish to change it because there's no motivation. The same thing goes for here, in America, and frankly, the entire West. No one wants to change our perception of peoples-- to evolve our judgement-- because no one has the motivation to really give a shit about anything that isn't spoon-fed to them already.

I can only speak to Americans, Germans and Canadians (and then only anecodtal agreement) but whatever the experience, generally the Nazis are more reviled than the Communists, and Hitler is 'the new Judas'.

But the biggest lessons an American child should take from the Hitler Parable:
1. Give plenty of Art Scholarships. So much misery could have been avoided by giving shite artists marginal education and employment.
In America, Hitler would be a graphic designer somewhere, making a decent wage, but having 4/5ths of his check garnished to pay off student loans from his shite Art school.
2. If they come for your neighbors, no matter how much you dislike them, band together and kill the motherf'ers because by the time they come for your family, no one will be left to say anything.

Напишано од Pinheiro, 23.04.2014 at 21:16

Because everyone that supports socialist ideologies are automatically turned into Stalin's fans, of course.

Never said that. I'm sure you can find some national socialists who are not Hitler supporters.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 23:18

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 22:46

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Seriously?

Наводници:

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

OP wonders why Nazi supporters are automatically declared, amongst other things, racist?
I reply it is because National Socialism is inherently racist and because Communism is inherently NOT racist.

Now, am I crazy, or was the original post something other than above?
===
I didn't proceed with the rest of the argument because the poster is transparently trolling. There IS no question, only a statement, which I can summarize thusly:

"Liberals are hypocrites because Nazis are considered racists who killed 50 million people, but Communists killed 100 million people, but are generally accepted into society."

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society.
EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

It may argue back, to which I would reply "How can one be a libertarian AND a nationalist" and send it some links.
===
Americans are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans in the slave trade and millions of Native Americans in the Indian wars and the practices through the twentieth century - Even though our constitution and political ideologies of 'Manifest Destiny' not only legitimized the genocide, it encouraged it.
The number is pretty large, I don't know if it is 50 million, and wasn't all in 50 years, but we don't deny it *and we are really genuinely sorry about it* and, for what it was worth, at key points in history, Native Americans owned African slaves, and African Americans were involved in Native American oppression (Buffalo Soldiers).
Also, we got sensible and quit killing people off in intentional genocides, So, there's that ....

I'm not even sure if this is worth replying to. So many baseless and stupid assumptions it was cancerous to read. Please reply again, next time with less strawman arguments.

Напишано од KYBL, 24.04.2014 at 02:17

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 23:18

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 22:46

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Seriously?

Наводници:

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

OP wonders why Nazi supporters are automatically declared, amongst other things, racist?
I reply it is because National Socialism is inherently racist and because Communism is inherently NOT racist.

Now, am I crazy, or was the original post something other than above?
===
I didn't proceed with the rest of the argument because the poster is transparently trolling. There IS no question, only a statement, which I can summarize thusly:

"Liberals are hypocrites because Nazis are considered racists who killed 50 million people, but Communists killed 100 million people, but are generally accepted into society."

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society.
EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

It may argue back, to which I would reply "How can one be a libertarian AND a nationalist" and send it some links.
===
Americans are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans in the slave trade and millions of Native Americans in the Indian wars and the practices through the twentieth century - Even though our constitution and political ideologies of 'Manifest Destiny' not only legitimized the genocide, it encouraged it.
The number is pretty large, I don't know if it is 50 million, and wasn't all in 50 years, but we don't deny it *and we are really genuinely sorry about it* and, for what it was worth, at key points in history, Native Americans owned African slaves, and African Americans were involved in Native American oppression (Buffalo Soldiers).
Also, we got sensible and quit killing people off in intentional genocides, So, there's that ....

I'm not even sure if this is worth replying to. So many baseless and stupid assumptions it was cancerous to read. Please reply again, next time with less strawman arguments.

I don't think you mean 'strawman', unless you were the scarecrow - and I have no control over your behavior!

Do we agree that Nazis are by definition, racists?
If not, why not?

Напишано од zombieyeti, 24.04.2014 at 16:08

Напишано од KYBL, 24.04.2014 at 02:17

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 23:18

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 22:46

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Seriously?

Наводници:

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

OP wonders why Nazi supporters are automatically declared, amongst other things, racist?
I reply it is because National Socialism is inherently racist and because Communism is inherently NOT racist.

Now, am I crazy, or was the original post something other than above?
===
I didn't proceed with the rest of the argument because the poster is transparently trolling. There IS no question, only a statement, which I can summarize thusly:

"Liberals are hypocrites because Nazis are considered racists who killed 50 million people, but Communists killed 100 million people, but are generally accepted into society."

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society.
EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

It may argue back, to which I would reply "How can one be a libertarian AND a nationalist" and send it some links.
===
Americans are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans in the slave trade and millions of Native Americans in the Indian wars and the practices through the twentieth century - Even though our constitution and political ideologies of 'Manifest Destiny' not only legitimized the genocide, it encouraged it.
The number is pretty large, I don't know if it is 50 million, and wasn't all in 50 years, but we don't deny it *and we are really genuinely sorry about it* and, for what it was worth, at key points in history, Native Americans owned African slaves, and African Americans were involved in Native American oppression (Buffalo Soldiers).
Also, we got sensible and quit killing people off in intentional genocides, So, there's that ....

I'm not even sure if this is worth replying to. So many baseless and stupid assumptions it was cancerous to read. Please reply again, next time with less strawman arguments.

I don't think you mean 'strawman', unless you were the scarecrow - and I have no control over your behavior!

Do we agree that Nazis are by definition, racists?
If not, why not?

I personally would take racism as direct hatred and harassment of other races. Simply stating "WHIET POWUR" wouldn't really merit true racism, because they could also say "WE LIKE DEM AZNS TOO, BUT WHIIIIIIET POWUR". I.E., pride in one's race, as long as other races aren't downplayed.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 24.04.2014 at 16:08

Напишано од KYBL, 24.04.2014 at 02:17

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 23:18

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 22:46

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Seriously?

Наводници:

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

OP wonders why Nazi supporters are automatically declared, amongst other things, racist?
I reply it is because National Socialism is inherently racist and because Communism is inherently NOT racist.

Now, am I crazy, or was the original post something other than above?
===
I didn't proceed with the rest of the argument because the poster is transparently trolling. There IS no question, only a statement, which I can summarize thusly:

"Liberals are hypocrites because Nazis are considered racists who killed 50 million people, but Communists killed 100 million people, but are generally accepted into society."

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society.
EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

It may argue back, to which I would reply "How can one be a libertarian AND a nationalist" and send it some links.
===
Americans are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans in the slave trade and millions of Native Americans in the Indian wars and the practices through the twentieth century - Even though our constitution and political ideologies of 'Manifest Destiny' not only legitimized the genocide, it encouraged it.
The number is pretty large, I don't know if it is 50 million, and wasn't all in 50 years, but we don't deny it *and we are really genuinely sorry about it* and, for what it was worth, at key points in history, Native Americans owned African slaves, and African Americans were involved in Native American oppression (Buffalo Soldiers).
Also, we got sensible and quit killing people off in intentional genocides, So, there's that ....

I'm not even sure if this is worth replying to. So many baseless and stupid assumptions it was cancerous to read. Please reply again, next time with less strawman arguments.

I don't think you mean 'strawman', unless you were the scarecrow - and I have no control over your behavior!

Do we agree that Nazis are by definition, racists?
If not, why not?

It was a strawman, you completely misrepresented me to make my argument easier to refute, despite that I never said much of what you said and it is based off stupid assumptions.

Напишано од KYBL, 24.04.2014 at 22:30

Напишано од zombieyeti, 24.04.2014 at 16:08

Напишано од KYBL, 24.04.2014 at 02:17

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 23:18

Напишано од Guest, 23.04.2014 at 22:46

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 21:48

Wow. Seriously?
It is because National Socialism is, by definition, Racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Наводници:

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3] While most conceptualizations of racism include the notion of "race based discrimination", the exact definition is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and does not constitute discrimination.

Communism isn't racist (though particular Communist people may have been) - it is *the* anti-racist ideology, and probably the biggest reasons why de jure racist societies (like the United States) were shamed into removing, at least, legal barriers to full franchise to racial minorities.

Put simply, National Socialism is inherently racist, and Communism, inherently, is universalist and anti-racist.

And your point pertaining to OP is what, exactly?

Seriously?

Наводници:

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

OP wonders why Nazi supporters are automatically declared, amongst other things, racist?
I reply it is because National Socialism is inherently racist and because Communism is inherently NOT racist.

Now, am I crazy, or was the original post something other than above?
===
I didn't proceed with the rest of the argument because the poster is transparently trolling. There IS no question, only a statement, which I can summarize thusly:

"Liberals are hypocrites because Nazis are considered racists who killed 50 million people, but Communists killed 100 million people, but are generally accepted into society."

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society.
EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

It may argue back, to which I would reply "How can one be a libertarian AND a nationalist" and send it some links.
===
Americans are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans in the slave trade and millions of Native Americans in the Indian wars and the practices through the twentieth century - Even though our constitution and political ideologies of 'Manifest Destiny' not only legitimized the genocide, it encouraged it.
The number is pretty large, I don't know if it is 50 million, and wasn't all in 50 years, but we don't deny it *and we are really genuinely sorry about it* and, for what it was worth, at key points in history, Native Americans owned African slaves, and African Americans were involved in Native American oppression (Buffalo Soldiers).
Also, we got sensible and quit killing people off in intentional genocides, So, there's that ....

I'm not even sure if this is worth replying to. So many baseless and stupid assumptions it was cancerous to read. Please reply again, next time with less strawman arguments.

I don't think you mean 'strawman', unless you were the scarecrow - and I have no control over your behavior!

Do we agree that Nazis are by definition, racists?
If not, why not?

It was a strawman, you completely misrepresented me to make my argument easier to refute, despite that I never said much of what you said and it is based off stupid assumptions.

(exhaling)
What did I misrepresent? Was it 'unfair' for me to characterize your statements (there is no question except 'why is this') as I did?
When you ask 'why is this' you are 'begging the question'. Here is an example: KY Ball, have you stopped beating your wife?

Наводници:

To support Naziism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

BUT when you support Communism, an ideology that killed over double the maximum amount of people killed by Naziism, you may be ridiculed by conservatives at worst and are generally accepted into society.

Why is this? I am not a nazi or a fascist (I am a libertarian and a Zionist which is very much anti-Nazi) but I don't understand this liberal hypocracy.

So if you feel I have misrepresented you, let's try again.
You have read my assertion that National Socialism is, by definition, racist.
- Do you disagree with the assertion?

- What do you mean by 'liberal'? Do you mean the philosophical and political standpoint that assert human beings have a right to life, liberty and property, limited government which serves only at the consent of the governed, and economic freedom? Somehow I don't think you do.

- Where is the liberal 'hypocrisy'?

When I state this is a transparent trolling, and you (perhaps) disagree, do you contend that 'Conservatives', generally, don't view National Socialism as racist, monstrous and evil?

Just remember in your reply that I have indicated a number of possible responses, which you have already characterized as misrepresentations of your 'question'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

This is how you misrepresented my argument.

Наводници:

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society. EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

None of this is true at all. First of all, I don't think Obama is a communist. Second of all, I don't want Israel to start a nuclear war, I don't believe in Jesus, and I don't think Israel is an "evil". Lastly, I don't hate government nor paying taxes, I don't yet pay taxes.

I was not begging the question. If I were begging the question, my question is why some people believe this. I never assumed that you believe this, I states that people believe this and you can find proof just from seeing that the swastika is banned by the mods of AtWar while the communist hammer and sickle is not.

National Socialism is inherently racist, but fascism is not. Perhaps I should have said fascism because that applies in this case too. And for that, I will apologize.

By a liberal, I am not referring to what Europeans would consider a "liberal", rather to what an American would refer to as a "liberal". Of course, liberal has many definitions, but I am referring to the politically correct type of "liberal" as that is a trait found more among liberals than conservatives.

The hypocrisy is that you can't support fascism because it killed so many people, but you can support communism which killed many more people.

Напишано од KYBL, 26.04.2014 at 18:01

This is how you misrepresented my argument.

Наводници:

The OP will or will not reply. On the chance I was wrong about the trolling, I would next I would ask the OP to post evidence of the 100 million (2x that killed by Communists). Perhaps I would ask it to name one famous living American Communist, since there are so 'generally accepted' into society. EDIT: And the OP would probably reply 'Obama'.

Though it calls itself a Zionist, what I would guess it really means is 'someone who hopes Israelis will start a nuclear war in the middle east and bring Jesus back' and sees Israel as a necessary evil in this eschatological endeavor. And though it calls itself a libertarian I would also opine (not state) that what it really means is "someone who hates government and paying taxes".

None of this is true at all. First of all, I don't think Obama is a communist. Second of all, I don't want Israel to start a nuclear war, I don't believe in Jesus, and I don't think Israel is an "evil". Lastly, I don't hate government nor paying taxes, I don't yet pay taxes.

I was not begging the question. If I were begging the question, my question is why some people believe this. I never assumed that you believe this, I states that people believe this and you can find proof just from seeing that the swastika is banned by the mods of AtWar while the communist hammer and sickle is not.

National Socialism is inherently racist, but fascism is not. Perhaps I should have said fascism because that applies in this case too. And for that, I will apologize.

By a liberal, I am not referring to what Europeans would consider a "liberal", rather to what an American would refer to as a "liberal". Of course, liberal has many definitions, but I am referring to the politically correct type of "liberal" as that is a trait found more among liberals than conservatives.

The hypocrisy is that you can't support fascism because it killed so many people, but you can support communism which killed many more people.

I made some speculations, and you have told me they are not true. While I cannot speak to the mods ban, a sufficient reason is that the Swastika flag is illegal in some countries. I am not aware of any country where the hammer and sickle are, and as we both point out, NS is racist, the swasi flag is symbolic of NS, and racism is An Offense Against NS Rules.

As I said I would, I ask you to name one famous living American Communist, and then ask you to post evidence of the 100 million people killed by Communists.
One famous living American Communist would be enough, since you've made a reasonable concession.
---
When you remove National Socialism from the Fascist domain in asking your question, I'm not sure that people can relate.
I know that Political Science has a very difficult time defining Fascism other than the rather empty 'radical authoritarian nationalism'.
Arguably, in practice, the USSR under Stalin was a radical authoritarian nationalist state, though philosophically they would claim universalism versus nationalism.
In philosophy and practice, North Korea, the last remaining 'Stalinist state' is radical totalitarian nationalist - and all totalitarian states are authoritarian^2.

That being said, all fascism clearly contains the component of Nationalism - and Communism in theory is directly opposed to Nationalism (it is universalist).

In any case, removing NS from this paragraph deprives it of both truth and meaning.

Наводници:

To support Fascism, you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society because you support an ideology that debatably killed 50 million if you attribute all deaths in WWII to it. Often you are described as a maniac, insane, or mentally I'll.

No one thinks Fascist Italy and Spain were responsible for the deaths of 50 million people. Reasonable people don't necessarily see Italian, Spanish and Argentinian fascists as *particularly* racist (monstrous and evil still up for debate), and Golden Dawn doesn't rule Greece.

I would further opine that racist, nationalist, genocidal nations are not universally reviled because of their past. America, Canada and Australia all have racist, nationalist and genocidal past practices. So it doesn't seem to be a past association either.

I would say that it isn't because of the past, or body count at all. I think it has more to do with a perception of what a 21st century fascist would do, vs. a 21st century Communist.

One need not 'imagine' 21st Century Communists. One need only look to China, where there is economic dynamism, or N. Korea, where there is lunacy - and no one I know of personally supports the N. Korean way-of-being-Communist. Space Nazis with databases, networks, ICBMs and ubiquitous surveillance is scary.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 27.04.2014 at 00:27

and then ask you to post evidence of the 100 million people killed by Communists.

I think 100 million, is a pretty "safe" estimation.Considering even wikipedia, who every logical and skeptical person, knows it cannot be trusted much in political matters, gives around 20 million for Russia and 35 million for China and 2 for cambodia.Estimations about Russia's demicide usually range from 30-60 million, China 30-60 million, 2 million is generally accepted for Camdodia and another 2 for N.K. and a couple more millions here and there, by others.You do the math.Hitler's was like 20-30 million?So why is it generally accepted that Hitler was a mass murderer and N.S. evil, and Stalin and communism not?Does the lifes of Jewish people matter more than those of Russians,Ukrainians,Chinese,Vietnamese?I will answer on this,the answer is no.Human life has the same worth, wether its black,white,yellow,Jewish,Indian or whatever.Saying otherwise would be racist.
That being said, i agree with the op, that i find this hypocritical, aswell.Hitler was a monster but so was Stalin and so was Mao.

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 27.04.2014 at 07:12

Напишано од zombieyeti, 27.04.2014 at 00:27

and then ask you to post evidence of the 100 million people killed by Communists.

I think 100 million, is a pretty "safe" estimation.Considering even wikipedia, who every logical and skeptical person, knows it cannot be trusted much in political matters, gives around 20 million for Russia and 35 million for China and 2 for cambodia.Estimations about Russia's demicide usually range from 30-60 million, China 30-60 million, 2 million is generally accepted for Camdodia and another 2 for N.K. and a couple more millions here and there, by others.You do the math.Hitler's was like 20-30 million?So why is it generally accepted that Hitler was a mass murderer and N.S. evil, and Stalin and communism not?Does the lifes of Jewish people matter more than those of Russians,Ukrainians,Chinese,Vietnamese?I will answer on this,the answer is no.Human life has the same worth, wether its black,white,yellow,Jewish,Indian or whatever.Saying otherwise would be racist.
That being said, i agree with the op, that i find this hypocritical, aswell.Hitler was a monster but so was Stalin and so was Mao.

Besides not following the discussion (where I skip the question as IRRELEVANT, thus the strikeout), and ignoring the argument that fascism, without NS, is difficult to define even for Political Scientists, and how the OP has adjusted their statement to be almost meaningless, I'll be happy to discuss the numbers anyway.

1. There is a tremendous *qualitative* difference between Nazi atrocities, were millions of Germans, their allies, and their enemies were *systematically* killed due to aggressive war, genocide, state-sanctioned execution and murderous starvation-sequestration (death camps and ghettoes) and Communism, where the vast majority of the deaths you cite were caused by starvation, brought about by famine.

2. Deaths by famine, in the USSR and China, were largely a result of stupidity and incompetence. To this I would add bad luck and self-serving crisis management.
Specifically, when famines occur due to bad luck, bumbling and incompetence, leaders *did* seize the opportunity to eliminate their political foes - but I am unaware of the famines in Communist countries being so politically engineered that one large segment of the population grew fat and the rest died.
Famines happen - now what do you do when some people are clearly going to die?

To call a political ideology 'evil'
I have maintained that one is free to call Communism 'evil' or any political ideology for that matter - but Communism has been tried in many places, with many leaders and with varying results. Is China, now, evil? Is it evil in what it does, now, or because of its past? Was Mao evil? Stalin?

Bad things happen. A necessary (but not sufficient/complete) definition of evil includes 'intentionality' - One person or group *intends* for harm to come to another, in order to cause benefit to the group causing the harm.

In the case of NS specifically, Nazis intended to eliminate Jewish people (and Gypsies, and Slavs) from the political life in Europe-to-China to benefit (at best) 'the people' of suitable ethnic heritage who also complied with their will.. The people would suffer in the short term for the better future for the people in the long term.
And when it was clear that their vision would not come to pass, did everything they could to destroy everything, including 'the people' they claimed to serve.

I would call this 'unqualified evil' - as it served no one. Not the world, not Europe in general, and in the end, not even the 'the people' and NOT EVEN NAZIS.
An unconditional surrender would have saved millions of 'the people's' lives including that of some nazis who were killed in the final months of the war.

Communists intended to foster, nurture, and if necessary, force, revolution in all capitalist countries, with the intent that the common worker would be liberated; Communists would then work together to bring this revolution worldwide until there were no more capitalist nations. Then would begin the long task of industrializing the billions in non-capitalist countries to a better quality of life. At some point, there would be no material scarcity and no need for government, as the revolution would be complete.

Acts taken in service to the sincere cause of liberating oppressed humanity might be no different in effect from those same acts taken by NS. But, these acts are done with the intent of the eventual liberation of billions of oppressed people (everyone). I see this as a different category of 'evil'.

Finally, look at Japan and Fukushima. A liberal democracy, L-F Capitalism. The leadership of 21st century Japan are slaves in service to the Japanese people.
At some point, they made a conscious cost-benefit-evaluation in regards to nuclear power and politically, determined that the benefits outweighed the costs, and had the engineering reports and the spreadsheets to demonstrate this.
Then came the real world, politics, human error, weather and profiteering by the construction company and cost-cutting by the government and plant operators.

Do we categorically call the people involved in the whole process (from the first accountant to the last power plan laborer) *evil*?
Are the Japanese governments from 1967-2011 *evil*
===
Re: Wikipedia

Наводници:

... who every logical and skeptical person, knows it cannot be trusted much in political matters

I disagree with you. Do people 'bend' wikipedia to their will? Of course! Do other people bend it back? Absolutely.
You can follow this bending in the discussion pages.

There are rarely discussion pages in scholarly journals, and it may take months of years (or never) before a refutation of even an obvious innocent *mistake* occurs. Intentional lies may never be uncovered.

Wikipedia at any given time may be incorrect, wikipedia, as a whole, is a tremendous resource.
It allows people, in various languages, to actually cite and discuss the *evidence* and *argument* they make rather than post huge lies.
---
What we did here was discuss evidence and arguments. You made your argument, you dished up your evidence, I did the same, in reply to yours.
Except for unqualified statements about Race and Wikipedia, which were relatively irrelevant to the argument, now people can make informed judgments on the validity of our arguments and evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Напишано од zombieyeti, 27.04.2014 at 16:48

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 27.04.2014 at 07:12

Напишано од zombieyeti, 27.04.2014 at 00:27

and then ask you to post evidence of the 100 million people killed by Communists.

I think 100 million, is a pretty "safe" estimation.Considering even wikipedia, who every logical and skeptical person, knows it cannot be trusted much in political matters, gives around 20 million for Russia and 35 million for China and 2 for cambodia.Estimations about Russia's demicide usually range from 30-60 million, China 30-60 million, 2 million is generally accepted for Camdodia and another 2 for N.K. and a couple more millions here and there, by others.You do the math.Hitler's was like 20-30 million?So why is it generally accepted that Hitler was a mass murderer and N.S. evil, and Stalin and communism not?Does the lifes of Jewish people matter more than those of Russians,Ukrainians,Chinese,Vietnamese?I will answer on this,the answer is no.Human life has the same worth, wether its black,white,yellow,Jewish,Indian or whatever.Saying otherwise would be racist.
That being said, i agree with the op, that i find this hypocritical, aswell.Hitler was a monster but so was Stalin and so was Mao.

Besides not following the discussion (where I skip the question as IRRELEVANT, thus the strikeout), and ignoring the argument that fascism, without NS, is difficult to define even for Political Scientists, and how the OP has adjusted their statement to be almost meaningless, I'll be happy to discuss the numbers anyway.

1. There is a tremendous *qualitative* difference between Nazi atrocities, were millions of Germans, their allies, and their enemies were *systematically* killed due to aggressive war, genocide, state-sanctioned execution and murderous starvation-sequestration (death camps and ghettoes) and Communism, where the vast majority of the deaths you cite were caused by starvation, brought about by famine.

2. Deaths by famine, in the USSR and China, were largely a result of stupidity and incompetence. To this I would add bad luck and self-serving crisis management.
Specifically, when famines occur due to bad luck, bumbling and incompetence, leaders *did* seize the opportunity to eliminate their political foes - but I am unaware of the famines in Communist countries being so politically engineered that one large segment of the population grew fat and the rest died.
Famines happen - now what do you do when some people are clearly going to die?

To call a political ideology 'evil'
I have maintained that one is free to call Communism 'evil' or any political ideology for that matter - but Communism has been tried in many places, with many leaders and with varying results. Is China, now, evil? Is it evil in what it does, now, or because of its past? Was Mao evil? Stalin?

Bad things happen. A necessary (but not sufficient/complete) definition of evil includes 'intentionality' - One person or group *intends* for harm to come to another, in order to cause benefit to the group causing the harm.

In the case of NS specifically, Nazis intended to eliminate Jewish people (and Gypsies, and Slavs) from the political life in Europe-to-China to benefit (at best) 'the people' of suitable ethnic heritage who also complied with their will.. The people would suffer in the short term for the better future for the people in the long term.
And when it was clear that their vision would not come to pass, did everything they could to destroy everything, including 'the people' they claimed to serve.

I would call this 'unqualified evil' - as it served no one. Not the world, not Europe in general, and in the end, not even the 'the people' and NOT EVEN NAZIS.
An unconditional surrender would have saved millions of 'the people's' lives including that of some nazis who were killed in the final months of the war.

Communists intended to foster, nurture, and if necessary, force, revolution in all capitalist countries, with the intent that the common worker would be liberated; Communists would then work together to bring this revolution worldwide until there were no more capitalist nations. Then would begin the long task of industrializing the billions in non-capitalist countries to a better quality of life. At some point, there would be no material scarcity and no need for government, as the revolution would be complete.

Acts taken in service to the sincere cause of liberating oppressed humanity might be no different in effect from those same acts taken by NS. But, these acts are done with the intent of the eventual liberation of billions of oppressed people (everyone). I see this as a different category of 'evil'.

Finally, look at Japan and Fukushima. A liberal democracy, L-F Capitalism. The leadership of 21st century Japan are slaves in service to the Japanese people.
At some point, they made a conscious cost-benefit-evaluation in regards to nuclear power and politically, determined that the benefits outweighed the costs, and had the engineering reports and the spreadsheets to demonstrate this.
Then came the real world, politics, human error, weather and profiteering by the construction company and cost-cutting by the government and plant operators.

Do we categorically call the people involved in the whole process (from the first accountant to the last power plan laborer) *evil*?
Are the Japanese governments from 1967-2011 *evil*
===
Re: Wikipedia

Наводници:

... who every logical and skeptical person, knows it cannot be trusted much in political matters

I disagree with you. Do people 'bend' wikipedia to their will? Of course! Do other people bend it back? Absolutely.
You can follow this bending in the discussion pages.

There are rarely discussion pages in scholarly journals, and it may take months of years (or never) before a refutation of even an obvious innocent *mistake* occurs. Intentional lies may never be uncovered.

Wikipedia at any given time may be incorrect, wikipedia, as a whole, is a tremendous resource.
It allows people, in various languages, to actually cite and discuss the *evidence* and *argument* they make rather than post huge lies.
---
What we did here was discuss evidence and arguments. You made your argument, you dished up your evidence, I did the same, in reply to yours.
Except for unqualified statements about Race and Wikipedia, which were relatively irrelevant to the argument, now people can make informed judgments on the validity of our arguments and evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

I dont have time atm to disect and reply to everything, so just some clarifications until i get the time.Which was my unqualified statement about race?How can you be sure about Hitler's intention and Stalin's intensions?Judging from the evidence i personally have read, both are equally evil?Although im not claiming to be a figure of authority in this matter, im pretty sure the average person would agree with me.Do i really have to say why Stalin was "evil" and what he did?Lets just say that Stalins forced labour camps for example are considered one of the greatest adaptations of hell on earth.Also Mao said (his own words) that in his masterplan he predicts around 30 million citizen deaths if i remember correctly.Is that planned enough for you?How about when Stalin left the Ukranians to die?He didnt know they would die?Stalin starved millions but he did it by mistake..?or for a greater cause..?is that your argument?Intensions are A. Irrelevant (my intention is to save that lady but i killed her and her whole family.Am i innocent?) and B. Cannot ever fully verified cause we werent there so we cant actually be sure about one's intentions.That being said, we judge people by their actions and NOT their intentions.
Lastly since you discriminate again, know that we are talking about war.And the members who participate either militarily or politically, can get hurt.What happened to the Jewish people was atrocious but if you ask me they had it coming.Nobody forced the Jews to come from New York and start a bloody revolution in Russia.Nobody forced them to start a revolution in Hungary also,and "try" also in Germany and elsewhere and create all this chaos in Europe.Nobody forced them to be the larger percentage in these and other countries new governments.Nobody forced them to do alot of things, but the Jewish had their own plans and their own agenda, just like everybody else and entered the "game" on their own free will.I can explain further, but thats all i can do at this moment.

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 27.04.2014 at 17:34

I dont have time atm to disect and reply to everything, so just some clarifications until i get the time.Which was my unqualified statement about race?How can you be sure about Hitler's intention and Stalin's intensions?Judging from the evidence i personally have read, both are equally evil?Although im not claiming to be a figure of authority in this matter, im pretty sure the average person would agree with me.Do i really have to say why Stalin was "evil" and what he did?Lets just say that Stalins forced labour camps for example are considered one of the greatest adaptations of hell on earth.Also Mao said (his own words) that in his masterplan he predicts around 30 million citizen deaths if i remember correctly.Is that planned enough for you?How about when Stalin left the Ukranians to die?He didnt know they would die?Stalin starved millions but he did it by mistake..?or for a greater cause..?is that your argument?Intensions are A. Irrelevant (my intention is to save that lady but i killed her and her whole family.Am i innocent?) and B. Cannot ever fully verified cause we werent there so we cant actually be sure about one's intentions.That being said, we judge people by their actions and NOT their intentions.
Lastly since you discriminate again, know that we are talking about war.And the members who participate either militarily or politically, can get hurt.What happened to the Jewish people was atrocious but if you ask me they had it coming.Nobody forced the Jews to come from New York and start a bloody revolution in Russia.Nobody forced them to start a revolution in Hungary also,and "try" also in Germany and elsewhere and create all this chaos in Europe.Nobody forced them to be the larger percentage in these and other countries new governments.Nobody forced them to do alot of things, but the Jewish had their own plans and their own agenda, just like everybody else and entered the "game" on their own free will.I can explain further, but thats all i can do at this moment.

khal is right...except for that hating on the jews...

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 27.04.2014 at 17:34

Напишано од zombieyeti, 27.04.2014 at 16:48

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 27.04.2014 at 07:12

Напишано од zombieyeti, 27.04.2014 at 00:27

and then ask you to post evidence of the 100 million people killed by Communists.

I think 100 million, is a pretty "safe" estimation.Considering even wikipedia, who every logical and skeptical person, knows it cannot be trusted much in political matters, gives around 20 million for Russia and 35 million for China and 2 for cambodia.Estimations about Russia's demicide usually range from 30-60 million, China 30-60 million, 2 million is generally accepted for Camdodia and another 2 for N.K. and a couple more millions here and there, by others.You do the math.Hitler's was like 20-30 million?So why is it generally accepted that Hitler was a mass murderer and N.S. evil, and Stalin and communism not?Does the lifes of Jewish people matter more than those of Russians,Ukrainians,Chinese,Vietnamese?I will answer on this,the answer is no.Human life has the same worth, wether its black,white,yellow,Jewish,Indian or whatever.Saying otherwise would be racist.
That being said, i agree with the op, that i find this hypocritical, aswell.Hitler was a monster but so was Stalin and so was Mao.

Besides not following the discussion (where I skip the question as IRRELEVANT, thus the strikeout), and ignoring the argument that fascism, without NS, is difficult to define even for Political Scientists, and how the OP has adjusted their statement to be almost meaningless, I'll be happy to discuss the numbers anyway.

1. There is a tremendous *qualitative* difference between Nazi atrocities, were millions of Germans, their allies, and their enemies were *systematically* killed due to aggressive war, genocide, state-sanctioned execution and murderous starvation-sequestration (death camps and ghettoes) and Communism, where the vast majority of the deaths you cite were caused by starvation, brought about by famine.

2. Deaths by famine, in the USSR and China, were largely a result of stupidity and incompetence. To this I would add bad luck and self-serving crisis management.
Specifically, when famines occur due to bad luck, bumbling and incompetence, leaders *did* seize the opportunity to eliminate their political foes - but I am unaware of the famines in Communist countries being so politically engineered that one large segment of the population grew fat and the rest died.
Famines happen - now what do you do when some people are clearly going to die?

To call a political ideology 'evil'
I have maintained that one is free to call Communism 'evil' or any political ideology for that matter - but Communism has been tried in many places, with many leaders and with varying results. Is China, now, evil? Is it evil in what it does, now, or because of its past? Was Mao evil? Stalin?

Bad things happen. A necessary (but not sufficient/complete) definition of evil includes 'intentionality' - One person or group *intends* for harm to come to another, in order to cause benefit to the group causing the harm.

In the case of NS specifically, Nazis intended to eliminate Jewish people (and Gypsies, and Slavs) from the political life in Europe-to-China to benefit (at best) 'the people' of suitable ethnic heritage who also complied with their will.. The people would suffer in the short term for the better future for the people in the long term.
And when it was clear that their vision would not come to pass, did everything they could to destroy everything, including 'the people' they claimed to serve.

I would call this 'unqualified evil' - as it served no one. Not the world, not Europe in general, and in the end, not even the 'the people' and NOT EVEN NAZIS.
An unconditional surrender would have saved millions of 'the people's' lives including that of some nazis who were killed in the final months of the war.

Communists intended to foster, nurture, and if necessary, force, revolution in all capitalist countries, with the intent that the common worker would be liberated; Communists would then work together to bring this revolution worldwide until there were no more capitalist nations. Then would begin the long task of industrializing the billions in non-capitalist countries to a better quality of life. At some point, there would be no material scarcity and no need for government, as the revolution would be complete.

Acts taken in service to the sincere cause of liberating oppressed humanity might be no different in effect from those same acts taken by NS. But, these acts are done with the intent of the eventual liberation of billions of oppressed people (everyone). I see this as a different category of 'evil'.

Finally, look at Japan and Fukushima. A liberal democracy, L-F Capitalism. The leadership of 21st century Japan are slaves in service to the Japanese people.
At some point, they made a conscious cost-benefit-evaluation in regards to nuclear power and politically, determined that the benefits outweighed the costs, and had the engineering reports and the spreadsheets to demonstrate this.
Then came the real world, politics, human error, weather and profiteering by the construction company and cost-cutting by the government and plant operators.

Do we categorically call the people involved in the whole process (from the first accountant to the last power plan laborer) *evil*?
Are the Japanese governments from 1967-2011 *evil*
===
Re: Wikipedia

Наводници:

... who every logical and skeptical person, knows it cannot be trusted much in political matters

I disagree with you. Do people 'bend' wikipedia to their will? Of course! Do other people bend it back? Absolutely.
You can follow this bending in the discussion pages.

There are rarely discussion pages in scholarly journals, and it may take months of years (or never) before a refutation of even an obvious innocent *mistake* occurs. Intentional lies may never be uncovered.

Wikipedia at any given time may be incorrect, wikipedia, as a whole, is a tremendous resource.
It allows people, in various languages, to actually cite and discuss the *evidence* and *argument* they make rather than post huge lies.
---
What we did here was discuss evidence and arguments. You made your argument, you dished up your evidence, I did the same, in reply to yours.
Except for unqualified statements about Race and Wikipedia, which were relatively irrelevant to the argument, now people can make informed judgments on the validity of our arguments and evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

I dont have time atm to disect and reply to everything, so just some clarifications until i get the time.Which was my unqualified statement about race?How can you be sure about Hitler's intention and Stalin's intensions?Judging from the evidence i personally have read, both are equally evil?Although im not claiming to be a figure of authority in this matter, im pretty sure the average person would agree with me.Do i really have to say why Stalin was "evil" and what he did?Lets just say that Stalins forced labour camps for example are considered one of the greatest adaptations of hell on earth.Also Mao said (his own words) that in his masterplan he predicts around 30 million citizen deaths if i remember correctly.Is that planned enough for you?How about when Stalin left the Ukranians to die?He didnt know they would die?Stalin starved millions but he did it by mistake..?or for a greater cause..?is that your argument?Intensions are A. Irrelevant (my intention is to save that lady but i killed her and her whole family.Am i innocent?) and B. Cannot ever fully verified cause we werent there so we cant actually be sure about one's intentions.That being said, we judge people by their actions and NOT their intentions.
Lastly since you discriminate again, know that we are talking about war.And the members who participate either militarily or politically, can get hurt.What happened to the Jewish people was atrocious but if you ask me they had it coming.Nobody forced the Jews to come from New York and start a bloody revolution in Russia.Nobody forced them to start a revolution in Hungary also,and "try" also in Germany and elsewhere and create all this chaos in Europe.Nobody forced them to be the larger percentage in these and other countries new governments.Nobody forced them to do alot of things, but the Jewish had their own plans and their own agenda, just like everybody else and entered the "game" on their own free will.I can explain further, but thats all i can do at this moment.

Here is your unqualified statement about race:

Наводници:

Does the lifes of Jewish people matter more than those of Russians,Ukrainians,Chinese,Vietnamese?I will answer on this,the answer is no.Human life has the same worth, wether its black,white,yellow,Jewish,Indian or whatever.Saying otherwise would be racist.

.

Hitler, Stalin, and Intentionality:
Whatever. Your hatred of jews means that you can't understand reason anyway. Saying intentions are irrelevant is idiotic, simple-minded and yet another example of your fevered, despicable, anti-Semitic mind.
Remember your words - where you ignore the obvious fact that Jewish people (e.g. Albert Einstein) represent <1% of all people, but hold >20% of all Nobel prizes, and even more in Science. Your reply continues this fine tradition.

Наводници:

You are a zionist jewish american law student focused on civics or some shit, who enjoy playing with words because thats what he was taught to do.The most useless,bullshiting,wordtwisting,corrupted proffesion.In practice thats what you been taught and trained to do.Twist words,use them in your advantage and lie.
Go become a great lawyer,protect the goverment,the church,the elite or some murderers, i dont care.Just shut it about scientists, because i am very well aware why you do this.Scientists always threatened your kind and were always hunted down and controlled, either through money and bribes or intimidation.But none of the Jewish controlled media in America, ever said a damn thing about the cases of scientists being attacked,their laboratories trashed and even murdered, cause they wanted to share their inventions and knowledge with the people.

Had you been a worthwhile opponent, or even an honest one, I'd reply in a more respectful and useful manner. You have discredited yourself thoroughly and irredeemably in my eyes.

The remainder is for those few that demand I justify my argument. Don't bother reading it, it is a waste of your time and what little brain power you aren't spending on hating Jews.
===
A Child's Primer on Justice
If you hit a person with a car and the person dies, your intent makes no difference to the state of the person's existence.
They are dead.
Morally and legally, if it was a complete accident, you are no less responsible for the person's death, because the immediate cause of the person's death was your action/inaction, but morally and legally you are less blameworthy for the person's demise than if you intended to murder the person. This degree of blame is called culpability.

Varying degrees of blame for the same practical outcome of a person's action or inaction is a part of the larger concept known as 'justice'.
A key principle of 'justice' is that the 'punishment should fit the crime',
As individuals we judge people with whatever criteria we wish, reasonable or not.
The Law definitely recognizes the Action, then determines the magnitude of sanction based on intent. Depending on the legal system, the 'intent' IS the crime (conspiracy to commit a crime, intent to commit a crime) where even planning the crime IS a crime, even if no one dies, or nothing is stolen.
==
Intent and Adolf Stalin.
Can I be *absolutely certain* that Hitler and Stalin had different intentions? No.
I can can say that Hitler espoused a racist ideology, described how once the NS Party gained power that he would use a variety of tactics to achieve his goals, and that, in practice, he did what he said he would do, until he was stopped (largely by the USSR).
When a person says he is going to do something, and then starts doing it, in law and morality this is known as 'pre-meditation', mens rea, or a 'guilty mind'.
While we cannot really 'know' what was in Hitler's mind, reasonable people generally agree he had a 'guilty mind', based on both his writings and the systematic approach NS took to killing Roma, Jews, Slavs etc.
The behaviors of Jews, Slavs, Roma etc. was of much less interest to Hitler than their existence.

I can also claim that Stalin did not espouse a racist ideology (but did become increasingly anti-Semitic, but not to the degree of genocidal-death camps) and that, generally, his goal was to propagate Communism worldwide.
When it appeared that would fail in the short term, he advocated 'Socialism in One Country' and abandoned direct military confrontation with the United States.
I am not aware of any systematic method, approach or event used by the USSR to kill and eliminate for all time a race or group of people for who they were by birth.
We also cannot know what was in Stalin's mind but reasonable people can disagree on the state of Stalin's mind. It was unlikely that every despicable thing he did was a mistake, and it was also unlikely that every bad thing he did was an intended consequence.

Did Stalin intentionally cause the lack of food for everyone?
Were ethnic Russians getting fat while Ukrainians starved?

Did Stalin take advantage of the disaster that was the famines of the 1930's? Sure. He was a horrible man, who was also ruthlessly practical. At some point there was not enough food to feed everyone. Did he do his best to ensure his political allies survived, if even to the detriment of his enemies? Sure.

Did Stalin then look to kill or imprison each Ukrainian? Not at all. He didn't want Ukrainians dead because they were Ukrainian, he wanted his political opponents to stop opposing him.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 28.04.2014 at 02:13

Here is your unqualified statement about race:

Наводници:

Does the lifes of Jewish people matter more than those of Russians,Ukrainians,Chinese,Vietnamese?I will answer on this,the answer is no.Human life has the same worth, wether its black,white,yellow,Jewish,Indian or whatever.Saying otherwise would be racist.

.

unqualified : Not qualified, ineligible, unfit for a position or task.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unqualified

First of all my statement cannot be unqualified.I can be be unqualified though, to make a particular statement.Please enlighten me with the qualifications, i need to have, to effectively judge the worth of human life.I thought in the 21st century, it was universaly accepted, that all human life has the same worth, are you saying otherwise?Are you also saying, that only people with certain qualifications are eligible to judge human life worth?And if yes, what are those qualifications and who decided on them?And under what authority?

Напишано од zombieyeti, 28.04.2014 at 02:13

Hitler, Stalin, and Intentionality:
Whatever. Your hatred of jews means that you can't understand reason anyway. Saying intentions are irrelevant is idiotic, simple-minded and yet another example of your fevered, despicable, anti-Semitic mind.
Remember your words - where you ignore the obvious fact that Jewish people (e.g. Albert Einstein) represent <1% of all people, but hold >20% of all Nobel prizes, and even more in Science. Your reply continues this fine tradition.

Наводници:

You are a zionist jewish american law student focused on civics or some shit, who enjoy playing with words because thats what he was taught to do.The most useless,bullshiting,wordtwisting,corrupted proffesion.In practice thats what you been taught and trained to do.Twist words,use them in your advantage and lie.
Go become a great lawyer,protect the goverment,the church,the elite or some murderers, i dont care.Just shut it about scientists, because i am very well aware why you do this.Scientists always threatened your kind and were always hunted down and controlled, either through money and bribes or intimidation.But none of the Jewish controlled media in America, ever said a damn thing about the cases of scientists being attacked,their laboratories trashed and even murdered, cause they wanted to share their inventions and knowledge with the people.

Had you been a worthwhile opponent, or even an honest one, I'd reply in a more respectful and useful manner. You have discredited yourself thoroughly and irredeemably in my eyes.

I already told you i dont hate jews.
Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike that can be directed against individuals, entities, objects, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger and a disposition towards hostility.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred

Regardless of my sincerity or not, i never provided you with any kind of evidence to support your claim, that i hate jews.I provided information, wether true or false is irrelevant, cause it is information and in no way shows any sign of emotion.If you think otherwise, feel free to make a valid, true and structured argument supporting your claim that i hate jews.I would like to see those premises.If you fail to do so, please take back your claim, because that would be deliberately lying and is insulting to me.

As for your accusations of being stupid and simple minded, again i will ask for a structured argument to support your claim.After all i wasnt the one just using ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As for the Jews and their Noble Prizes, that is great.I am glad that Jews have that much success.Your point being?Except to show obvious signs of nationalism and how much you love you race, what is the point of all this?Just because Jewish people win noble prizes, their life's worth increases?

As for the old quote of mine, what is the purpose of this?Is this your evidence that i hate jews?Cause i never showed any personal emotion in my post,if i did show me where.I was just providing information and making a structured vaild argument, with very clear premises and certainly not insulting.Unless information is insulting.

(*edit.I did provide signs of emotion & hostility towards the proffesion of the lawyer.I firmly stand behind this, as i despise and hate everything about the said proffesion and most of its practicioners.)

But if we are gonna play this game (of old quotes) i can actually provide evidence, that you have been biased, disrespectfull, emotionally supercharged in your responses and racist.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 23.04.2014 at 23:09

Premise 1: Albanians are invading Italy
Premise 2: Most whores are albanian
Premise 3: whores are stupid
Premise 4: Khal is stupid
Premise 5: Khal's account claims to be italy-based
Conclusion 1: Khal is a whore because it is stupid.
Conclusion 2: As Khal is a stupid whore, it is likely that it is an albanian.
What if we were to find that Khal is Greek, not Italian?
Premise 6: Khal is a liar.
Conclusion 3: Khal is a lying, stupid whore who may or may not be Greek, Italian, or Albanian.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 28.04.2014 at 02:13

The remainder is for those few that demand I justify my argument. Don't bother reading it, it is a waste of your time and what little brain power you aren't spending on hating Jews.
===
A Child's Primer on Justice
If you hit a person with a car and the person dies, your intent makes no difference to the state of the person's existence.
They are dead.
Morally and legally, if it was a complete accident, you are no less responsible for the person's death, because the immediate cause of the person's death was your action/inaction, but morally and legally you are less blameworthy for the person's demise than if you intended to murder the person. This degree of blame is called culpability.

Varying degrees of blame for the same practical outcome of a person's action or inaction is a part of the larger concept known as 'justice'.
A key principle of 'justice' is that the 'punishment should fit the crime',
As individuals we judge people with whatever criteria we wish, reasonable or not.
The Law definitely recognizes the Action, then determines the magnitude of sanction based on intent. Depending on the legal system, the 'intent' IS the crime (conspiracy to commit a crime, intent to commit a crime) where even planning the crime IS a crime, even if no one dies, or nothing is stolen.
==

Correct.I agree with all this.Except that it doesnt apply to what we are talking about.Stalin is dead and so is Hitler, so it is physically impossible to both, interogate them,psychologically evaluate them and/or put them through our judicionary system channels.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 28.04.2014 at 02:13

Intent and Adolf Stalin.
Can I be *absolutely certain* that Hitler and Stalin had different intentions? No.
I can can say that Hitler espoused a racist ideology, described how once the NS Party gained power that he would use a variety of tactics to achieve his goals, and that, in practice, he did what he said he would do, until he was stopped (largely by the USSR).
When a person says he is going to do something, and then starts doing it, in law and morality this is known as 'pre-meditation', mens rea, or a 'guilty mind'.
While we cannot really 'know' what was in Hitler's mind, reasonable people generally agree he had a 'guilty mind', based on both his writings and the systematic approach NS took to killing Roma, Jews, Slavs etc.
The behaviors of Jews, Slavs, Roma etc. was of much less interest to Hitler than their existence.

I can also claim that Stalin did not espouse a racist ideology (but did become increasingly anti-Semitic, but not to the degree of genocidal-death camps) and that, generally, his goal was to propagate Communism worldwide.
When it appeared that would fail in the short term, he advocated 'Socialism in One Country' and abandoned direct military confrontation with the United States.
I am not aware of any systematic method, approach or event used by the USSR to kill and eliminate for all time a race or group of people for who they were by birth.

Stalin and Hitler, were both totalitarian mass murderers.Their main difference is in ideology (nobody really cares), apart from that, they are very much alike.They both intentionally (some times unintentionally- ill give you that) murdered and tortured, millions of people.They both eliminated their political oposition.They both censored freedom of speech, relied heavily on propaganda, used radio and newspapers to spread their lies, put their people to work like slaves and etc etc.Their tactics where almost identical.A key difference is Hitler used Jews as a scapegoat, thus you can say Hitler is racist because he genocided a specific ethnic group, whereas Stalin did exactly the same, but with religious people.The way i see it, those are excatly the same and no more than simple, good old "removal of threat".I will explain.After November 1917 , the Bolsheviks (mainly Jews) wanted to continue their work and incite social revolutions in Germany and Britain.That was an immediate threat to EVERY German Nationalist, not only Hitler.So when i said in my previous post "Jews had it coming" ofcourse i didnt meant, that Hitler's actions were moraly justified, but they were tacticaly justified and made sense strategicaly.Jews was inciting revolutions in countries and putting their own governments in charge, after.Thats is basicly a form of "invasion".The thing is Jews didnt have a "home country" that Hitler could just declare war upon,therefore, in his mind, the best method of removing that specific threat, was mass murdering them.I dont agree with him but there, i just gave you a possible explanation of Hitler's motives behind his actions and how. morals taken aside, made sense.

Напишано од zombieyeti, 28.04.2014 at 02:13

Did Stalin intentionally cause the lack of food for everyone?
Were ethnic Russians getting fat while Ukrainians starved?

Did Stalin take advantage of the disaster that was the famines of the 1930's? Sure. He was a horrible man, who was also ruthlessly practical. At some point there was not enough food to feed everyone. Did he do his best to ensure his political allies survived, if even to the detriment of his enemies? Sure.

Did Stalin then look to kill or imprison each Ukrainian? Not at all. He didn't want Ukrainians dead because they were Ukrainian, he wanted his political opponents to stop opposing him.

Stalin was not as "stupid" as you want to portray him.Stalin wanted to build a formidable industrial military machine, capable of holding its own against the west and in order to catch up, sacrifices had to be made.That being said, it is very clear that Stalin had a plan and was determined to see it through, no matter the casualties.Take advantage of the famine?Oh please, Stalin created the famine. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to "liquidate" prosperous peasants ("kulaks") as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures, such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic, that ensured mass death.
Bla..






To end my blabbering, i will provide a quote from "the economist".Apparently the journalists working for the economist, agree with me.

"There is no answer to the question which was more evil, Hitler or Stalin? Stalin's legacy, by the weight of time, has proved harder to offload. But both men defy moral measurement. It is like asking whether pulling out toenails or giving electric shocks to the genitals is the more acceptable form of torture."
http://www.economist.com/node/346857

Напишано од zombieyeti, 24.04.2014 at 16:08

Do we agree that Nazis are by definition, racists?

You are no better. You are a racist zionist yourself. You are the very thing that you hate. Your hypocrisy is beyond anything that could be imagined, but it's to be expected given your heritage.

Here's what I wish OP would've said instead of comparing Hitler and Stalin:

I find it hypocritical that you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society for supporting Nazism, while supporting Zionism is viewed as something virtuous.




"I could have annihilated all the Jews in the world, but I left some of them alive so you will know why I was killing them." - Adolf Hitler

Напишано од Unleashed, 28.04.2014 at 08:09

Напишано од zombieyeti, 24.04.2014 at 16:08

Do we agree that Nazis are by definition, racists?

You are no better. You are a racist zionist yourself. You are the very thing that you hate. Your hypocrisy is beyond anything that could be imagined, but it's to be expected given your heritage.

Here's what I wish OP would've said instead of comparing Hitler and Stalin:

I find it hypocritical that you are automatically declared monstrous, racist, and evil by society for supporting Nazism, while supporting Zionism is viewed as something virtuous.




"I could have annihilated all the Jews in the world, but I left some of them alive so you will know why I was killing them." - Adolf Hitler

Can you provide an argument for why Zionism is evil?