Disturbing Rise of Anti-Semitism Among Black Celebs

Hitler would have said anything to get power. Not only was he not Socialist, the Socialists he didn't kill he threw into concentration camps.

There are limits to how much dumb I will tolerate.

Republicans have the racists now, wear that bigotry with pride!

 

So, a national socialist wasn't a socialist. You're right. Not worth the time to deal with stupid. Have a good day.

 

Hitler and Goebbels invented propaganda. And you believe them...

Historians have what they call the Standard Interpretation (SI).

The SI, and what common sense tells you, if you've looked at the history, is that he was not a Socialist. Once he got in power he threw the actual Socialists into concentration camps. Where they died.

Encyclopedia Brittanica:
"Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934."

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

 

Disturbing Rise of Anti-Semitism Among Black Celebs

You mean they can't take it but they can dish it out.

 

Yes. Unite the Right organized and delivered by Jason Kessler who had always been know as a rabid Liberal Democrat.
Similar to the January 8, 2011 Gabby Giffords shooting by rabid Liberal Democrat Jared Loughner after Giffords voted against Pelosi for minority leader on January 3, 2011 and after BoyBlue on dKos said Giffords was DEAD to him on January 5, 2011.

 

He was one of the organizers of Unite the Right (please take note of that last word). That's because he's an American neo-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-semitic conspiracy theorist. (Wiki)

That looks like it might be a mild psychotic break. Whatever he was, he's not a Dem now, he's a wacko...

Loughner definitely had what I would call a psychotic break. He even looks cray cray...

Oh, and that poster was talking about Charlottesville.

Next troll...

 

I really hope you didn't order 'sea monkeys' as a kid, because the bad news is that they weren't monkeys of any sort. Nor did they look like little pink people with big smiles. There goes childhood, but things get worse from there.

OK, so you might need to sit down for this. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea to most of us) is:

1) Not Democratic. I know, hard to beleive, but brace yourself for more:

2) Is not the 'people's', as they have zero influence on government. How you doing there, coping with the shocks? I hope so, becuase there is one more;

3) As the DPRK has been ruled as a private possession by the same family since 1950 it is not a Republic.

Shocking isn't it? How could it possibly be that sometimes things are not as they are labelled? Well, sometimes people or organizations like to use particular labels or brands to create an image that is not actually accurate.

That is probably enough shocks for one evening. I'll give you some time to absorb all that world changing information before we continue.

 

What do you call a country in which the government owns virtually all production?
The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
A. Capitalist
B. Socialist

 

I call it not relevant to an informed discussion of Nazi Germany

I don't know what is funnier about this, the fact that your quote doesn't provide the first bit of evidence of your contention, or the fact that you very clearly didn't read the link you provided. From the section titled 'Privatization and business ties'

So, Nazi policy on government ownership of private companies was so committed to private ownership that they privatized the single largest public enterprise in the world and preached about the 'incentives' and 'efficiencies' derived from private ownership & warned about the dangers of bureacratic control. Gee, sounds like something Thatcher or Reagan would say. Of course it wasn't just words. Like Thatcher and Reagan, the Nazis actually sold off publically owned enterprises to the private sector.

If your definition of 'Socialism' includes widespread privitization then you are operating with a fictional definition of 'socialism' that exists purely to make the Nazis 'left wing'. Even your own source torpedoes your fact free labelling.

Let me guess, your defence of your claim is based on the well documented interference of the Nazis in the German economy & industry in pursuit of its war aims. I mean, that just has to be 'Socialism', right? Well, no. That is pretty much what every nation did during WW2. The US under Roosevelt interferred heavily in the economy to facilitiate the war, but I'm sure you think was a 'Socialist'. How about Winston Churchill? Hard to dismiss him as a 'Socialist', yet Britain's wartime economy and society was heavily controlled, right down the rationing of food. Then there was feudal Japan, whose economy was also closely controlled. Pretty standard during a war where industry was as much a part of winning the war as frontline soldiers.

I'm assuming that even the most delusional right wing American isn't going to label Winston Churchill or Imperial Japan 'Socialist'. Of course, I could be wrong. You folk will make up just about anything to reach your pre-established conclusions, so maybe Winnie & Hirohito were 'Socialists' after all.

Probably time for you to stop debating history. If you can't even read the wiki link you supply then actual history books are going to be well beyond you.

 

Where did mitchscove go? I was waiting for a comeback. maybe some actual evidence beyond having 'socialist' in the name. Oh well.