@SuperbattleshipYamato hard to argue against any of this really. The IJN was so far gone by this point in the war that there’s not really much they could have done to salvage their situation one way or another. The bit about the allies not having many LSTs in general is something I never knew before though.
Mein dum Kanph
-
Thought I would update this
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hitlers-mein-kampf-becomes-german-bestseller-publisher-112022916.html
Not sure what to make of that. If I had to guess the reason it is selling so well is because people haven’t been allowed to see it. I doubt it is any kind of validation of Hitler. I think the reason it is probably doing so well is because if you were raised being told that your country was resp. for the most evil man who ever lived, you might be curious to want to read the book when it became legal.
I am aware of the Merkel thing and immigration, and there may be some stupid people who are getting it for that reason. But they are just that… stupid. Hitler made Muslim extremist honorary Aryans, and they were in the SS because they were a good fit (being fanatical crazies).
Anyhow, just thought it was interesting.
-
Thought I would update this
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hitlers-mein-kampf-becomes-german-bestseller-publisher-112022916.html
Not sure what to make of that. If I had to guess the reason it is selling so well is because people haven’t been allowed to see it. I doubt it is any kind of validation of Hitler. I think the reason it is probably doing so well is because if you were raised being told that your country was resp. for the most evil man who ever lived, you might be curious to want to read the book when it became legal.
I am aware of the Merkel thing and immigration, and there may be some stupid people who are getting it for that reason. But they are just that… stupid. Hitler made Muslim extremist honorary Aryans, and they were in the SS because they were a good fit (being fanatical crazies).
Anyhow, just thought it was interesting.
I’d like to address your point about Merkel and immigration.
First, I’d divide all ideologies into two categories: particularist and universalist. If for example a Jew is willing to sacrifice the interests of Palestinians in order to benefit Jews, that’s particularism. If a Palestinian is willing to sacrifice Jewish interests to benefit Palestinians, that’s also particularism. “My country, right or wrong, but my country” is an expression of particularism. The National Socialists were particularists: their objective was to benefit Germanic and Nordic ethnies, if necessary at the expense of other ethnies or non-white geographic races. The existence of a threat to one’s ethny tends to heighten ethnocentrism. One sees that heightened level of ethnocentrism on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and in most other cases where an ethny’s existence is threatened.
The question then arises: is Angela Merkel’s ideology particularist or universalist? Her policy calls for Germany to accept almost unlimited numbers of migrants from Third World nations. Such policies will (and are) causing the extinction of the German ethny, and its physical replacement with non-white Middle Easterners. This threat to the German ethny’s existence does not involve the drama of extermination bombing raids, firestorms, or forced deportations of millions of Germans. Instead, its effect is to use the slow, inexorable pressure of demographics to cause the extinction of the German ethny. (And more generally of the white race in Western and Central Europe.)
Throughout human history, it has been exceedingly rare for a nation to voluntarily accept large numbers of immigrants. The normal immigration policy is an outright ban, except perhaps for a few special cases. For Merkel’s immigration policy to be universalist, it would need to be part of a broader effort to pressure all the nations of the world to discard this traditional immigration policy in favor of a “destroy the native ethny” policy that Germany has adopted. For example, both China and India have truly massive populations. Opening the border between the two could result in large numbers of Chinese immigrants into India, and large numbers of Indian immigrants into China. With the right immigration policy and the right financial incentives, both ethnies could be destroyed/blended together. By the same token, Israel could be caused to lose its unique Jewish identity, for example by flooding it with large numbers of immigrants from Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa or India. (Israel accepts only Jewish immigrants.) The same could be done to Palestine to cause it to lose its unique Middle Eastern/Muslim identity.
However, no major players are pushing for any of this. Not Angela Merkel. Not the major media companies or plutocrats who stand behind Merkel. Not colleges or universities. No one within the Establishment is pushing for this kind of immigration policy for any non-white nation. Merkel’s immigration policy is highly particularist: traditionally white nations are asked to surrender their racial identities. The idea of asking any non-white nation to do the same is of course not even mentioned.
The Middle East’s problems are due to poverty, corruption, unequal distribution of wealth, overpopulation, and poor treatment of women. Paying large numbers of Middle Easterners to come to Germany, and to do nothing other than have babies and exist off the government dole, does not represent a serious attempt to solve any of those problems. If the goal was to benefit the Middle East, Merkel’s policy would be completely irrational. If on the other hand the goal were to cause the extinction of the German ethny, and of the white race within Germany, Merkel’s immigration policy would be highly rational. Merkel’s immigration policy is rabidly anti-German particularism. As such, it can only be embraced by self-hating Germans or self-hating whites. Anti-Nazi propaganda is therefore drummed into white children’s heads from a very early age, in order to create that self-hatred.
-
I agree with Kurt!
-
Thought I would update this
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hitlers-mein-kampf-becomes-german-bestseller-publisher-112022916.html
Not sure what to make of that. If I had to guess the reason it is selling so well is because people haven’t been allowed to see it. I doubt it is any kind of validation of Hitler. I think the reason it is probably doing so well is because if you were raised being told that your country was resp. for the most evil man who ever lived, you might be curious to want to read the book when it became legal.
I am aware of the Merkel thing and immigration, and there may be some stupid people who are getting it for that reason. But they are just that… stupid. Hitler made Muslim extremist honorary Aryans, and they were in the SS because they were a good fit (being fanatical crazies).
Anyhow, just thought it was interesting.
I’d like to address your point about Merkel and immigration.
First, I’d divide all ideologies into two categories: particularist and universalist. If for example a Jew is willing to sacrifice the interests of Palestinians in order to benefit Jews, that’s particularism. If a Palestinian is willing to sacrifice Jewish interests to benefit Palestinians, that’s also particularism. “My country, right or wrong, but my country” is an expression of particularism. The National Socialists were particularists: their objective was to benefit Germanic and Nordic ethnies, if necessary at the expense of other ethnies or non-white geographic races. The existence of a threat to one’s ethny tends to heighten ethnocentrism. One sees that heightened level of ethnocentrism on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and in most other cases where an ethny’s existence is threatened.
The question then arises: is Angela Merkel’s ideology particularist or universalist? Her policy calls for Germany to accept almost unlimited numbers of migrants from Third World nations. Such policies will (and are) causing the extinction of the German ethny, and its physical replacement with non-white Middle Easterners. This threat to the German ethny’s existence does not involve the drama of extermination bombing raids, firestorms, or forced deportations of millions of Germans. Instead, its effect is to use the slow, inexorable pressure of demographics to cause the extinction of the German ethny. (And more generally of the white race in Western and Central Europe.)
Throughout human history, it has been exceedingly rare for a nation to voluntarily accept large numbers of immigrants. The normal immigration policy is an outright ban, except perhaps for a few special cases. For Merkel’s immigration policy to be universalist, it would need to be part of a broader effort to pressure all the nations of the world to discard this traditional immigration policy in favor of a “destroy the native ethny” policy that Germany has adopted. For example, both China and India have truly massive populations. Opening the border between the two could result in large numbers of Chinese immigrants into India, and large numbers of Indian immigrants into China. With the right immigration policy and the right financial incentives, both ethnies could be destroyed/blended together. By the same token, Israel could be caused to lose its unique Jewish identity, for example by flooding it with large numbers of immigrants from Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa or India. (Israel accepts only Jewish immigrants.) The same could be done to Palestine to cause it to lose its unique Middle Eastern/Muslim identity.
However, no major players are pushing for any of this. Not Angela Merkel. Not the major media companies or plutocrats who stand behind Merkel. Not colleges or universities. No one within the Establishment is pushing for this kind of immigration policy for any non-white nation. Merkel’s immigration policy is highly particularist: traditionally white nations are asked to surrender their racial identities. The idea of asking any non-white nation to do the same is of course not even mentioned.
The Middle East’s problems are due to poverty, corruption, unequal distribution of wealth, overpopulation, and poor treatment of women. Paying large numbers of Middle Easterners to come to Germany, and to do nothing other than have babies and exist off the government dole, does not represent a serious attempt to solve any of those problems. If the goal was to benefit the Middle East, Merkel’s policy would be completely irrational. If on the other hand the goal were to cause the extinction of the German ethny, and of the white race within Germany, Merkel’s immigration policy would be highly rational. Merkel’s immigration policy is rabidly anti-German particularism. As such, it can only be embraced by self-hating Germans or self-hating whites. Anti-Nazi propaganda is therefore drummed into white children’s heads from a very early age, in order to create that self-hatred.
You make some valid points and I agree with some and not others. But being a WW2 site, and a thread about Mein Kamph; Hitler’s perspective on America and immigration is appropriate. I won’t attempt the direct quote, so here is me paraphrasing it.
America is to be feared because people around the world (mostly Europe to him) will abandon their entire lives and culture to go to America AND ADOPT American culture. The type of person who does this is the best the world has to offer, and America is made stronger for it.
Hitler was not referencing droves of refugees coming into a country being a strength. Being poor is not a virtue, it is an economic condition. What he was talking about was that it was hard to come to America because getting in meant you had to have something to offer. If you have something to offer why leave your country of origin and abandon your own culture? The immigrants who came here did (relatively) well in their own countries, but wanted more. He viewed America as siphoning off the world’s best in a macro kind of way (not every engineer or doctor would come here, but the guy who was a ‘doer’ in his own country would come).
To your larger point, historically you are correct. Look at the Austria-Hungarian empire as an example of how this kind of thing never works out. You must have a shared culture. The Irish who came here were not liked, but they CONTRIBUTED/ADDED to our culture (or at least one day a year we all get drunk). You can not have any group of people come into another culture and not assimilate. Immigration without assimilation is invasion. Diversity can be a good thing in small doses, but even than it is not essential. There is zero diversity in Japan and China and they are cleaning our clock in academics.
-
… You can not have any group of people come into another culture and not assimilate. Immigration without assimilation is invasion. Diversity can be a good thing in small doses, but even than it is not essential. There is zero diversity in Japan and China …
well said
-
Thank you, but I have to admit I stole that from Bobby Jindal. I should have referenced him.
“Let’s be really honest about this: Immigration without assimilation is not immigration; it’s an invasion,” he said. “When you look at what’s happening in Europe, you’ve got second and third generation immigrants that don’t consider themselves parts of those societies, those cultures, those values. We mustn’t let that happen here.”
-
The current trend towards “Right-Wing” politics is largely a reaction to the Anti-racist cult. In fact it is not extremist but an attempt to restore a natural medium ground between the true extremes of conservative global capitalism and “liberal” internationalism, which has of course become anything but liberal.
Nationalism is the true basis of democracy and by deliberately eroding the nation state the left are creating chaos and anarchy and calling it “freedom”. They ignore the obvious parallels with the fall of the Roman Empire as if a thousand year dark age was a good thing.That said, Mein Kampf is unreadable drivel.
But what is does reveal is that the aims of Nazism were always international, and are basically the same as the EU - create a highly centralised United States of Europe under German direction and expand into the east in order to create new markets and a source of cheap migrant labour.
-
The current trend towards “Right-Wing” politics is largely a reaction to the Anti-racist cult. In fact it is not extremist but an attempt to restore a natural medium ground between the true extremes of conservative global capitalism and “liberal” internationalism, which has of course become anything but liberal.
Nationalism is the true basis of democracy and by deliberately eroding the nation state the left are creating chaos and anarchy and calling it “freedom”. They ignore the obvious parallels with the fall of the Roman Empire as if a thousand year dark age was a good thing.That said, Mein Kampf is unreadable drivel.
But what is does reveal is that the aims of Nazism were always international, and are basically the same as the EU - create a highly centralised United States of Europe under German direction and expand into the east in order to create new markets and a source of cheap migrant labour.
During the late 1500s - early 1600s, the two strongest forces in English government were the monarch and the House of Peers. (The latter being a hereditary aristocracy.) But the death of King James and his replacement by Charles I led to a rise in importance in the House of Commons. Eventually that power struggle resulted in civil war, with the Puritans (House of Commons) ultimately defeating and beheading Charles I. His son, Charles II, was banished to France. The Puritans’ rule lasted several decades, after which Charles II assumed power. After Charles’ death, his son, James II, became king. In the Glorious Revolution (1688), Parliament decided to replace James II with William of Orange and Mary. This replacement involved only minor bloodshed, in contrast to the civil war which had taken place a half century earlier. The king had become significantly weaker than Parliament, and the House of Commons had become the single strongest branch of British government.
The American Revolution did not take place until many decades after the events I’ve just described. That revolution was in large part a response against abuses committed by the British government. The largely democratic British government. And it’s not as though those abuses were imposed by King George III against the wishes of a united Commons. On the contrary: all three branches of British government, including the House of Commons, played a role in embracing the policies the American colonists found so objectionable.
In history class it’s often claimed that the American revolutionaries were fighting for “democracy.” That claim is false, because the government we were rebelling against was largely democratic in nature. The replacement government, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was intended to be only 1/3 democratic. (The House of Representatives.) “Checks and balances” meant balancing out that 1/3 democratic element against two other, non-democratic components. (The presidency and the Senate.) The president was to be chosen by the electoral college, not the people. And Senators were selected by state governments, not the people. The American colonies had been on the receiving end of democratic misbehavior (the British House of Commons), and did not want the American version of that misbehavior to form the sole basis of our government.
There are certain steps one must take if one wants a strong, prosperous nation. Other steps will achieve the opposite result: a nation that’s corrupt, poor, stagnant. The dying Roman Empire took the latter types of steps: steps which ultimately resulted in collapse, and the onset of the Dark Ages. As you hinted, democracies are perfectly capable of taking those same types of negative, destructive actions, and most modern major democratic regimes are doing exactly that.
On an unrelated note, I’ve read Mein Kampf. The writing and content were of much higher quality than I’d been led to expect. There were of course parts which which I strongly disagreed. My impression of the book’s author was someone who was highly intelligent, ethnocentric, opinionated, self-taught, and who’d gleaned some basic insights into human psychology. As an example of this last, Hitler wrote that people expect of a leader the same traits a woman expects of a man: strength, decisiveness, courage, etc.
-
The writing and content were of much higher quality than I’d been led to expect….My impression of the book’s author was someone who was highly intelligent, ethnocentric, opinionated, self-taught, and who’d gleaned some basic insights into human psychology.
That figures Kurt.
-
Actually, the consensus is that the few coherent bits in the book were written by Hess. Whatever you think of Hitler’s world view, he was a lousy writer. In the middle of discussing the limits of Greater Germany he’ll go off on a long rant about venereal disease. Hitler was later on embarrassed by the book, though it did make him a rich man.
The majority of American colonists were against the Revolution; it was only French intervention that tipped the balance. Essentially the USA was an invention of a narrow masonic clique who’ve pretty much monopolised power ever since; most Presidents being related to each other several times over.
-
Actually, the consensus is that the few coherent bits in the book were written by Hess. Whatever you think of Hitler’s world view, he was a lousy writer. In the middle of discussing the limits of Greater Germany he’ll go off on a long rant about venereal disease. Hitler was later on embarrassed by the book, though it did make him a rich man.
The majority of American colonists were against the Revolution; it was only French intervention that tipped the balance. Essentially the USA was an invention of a narrow masonic clique who’ve pretty much monopolised power ever since; most Presidents being related to each other several times over.
You have not read the book, and are relying on the opinions of reviewers who have. If you think those reviewers are doing their very best to give a fair and unbiased appraisal of the work, then nothing I write is going to change your mind.
I don’t know enough about the subject of America’s ruling class to agree or disagree with your second paragraph. I’ve heard that both George W. Bush and Kerry were members of the Skull and Bones society; with the implication that the U.S. was going to get an Establishment president no matter how that election played out. I suspect that if I delved deeply into this subject I would not like what I found. But that’s only a suspicion, not something for which I have much evidence.
-
You have not read the book, and are relying on the opinions of reviewers who have. If you think those reviewers are doing their very best to give a fair and unbiased appraisal of the work, then nothing I write is going to change your mind.
Funny that especially you say something like that. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Funny also is that you still try to convince peoples of your own ideas :lol: :lol:
Suggested Topics
