Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

897

(post is archived)

[–] • 9 pts

On the first point I think there is a strong and important distinction to make. Equal in dignity under the law is very different from equal in ability. -

There is no question than people are of different abilities, but that does not make it ok to treat each other with disrespect or with the idea that one must inherently be made to work in servitude to another.

This is the problem that idiots believe and socialists exploit, Being equal under the law doesn't mean equal in ability in nature or life. So when people see different outcomes in nature they assume that some kind of discrimination must be taking place or there would be no discrepancy. So they come up with things like Equity. And then use the success of the more competent to support the idea that discrimination still exists in areas where it doesn't.

But it is too late for the academic argument now. No one is interested in that, we have moved on to war, whites are evil and all that...

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

The problem is ignorant people confuse equity with equality.

[–] • 0 pt

Let me shorten that for you.

The problem is ignorant people

Fixed. Fix the ignorant people, or eliminate them, and the problem itself naturally goes away.

[–] • 1 pt

This is the fashpill.

"BUT WE JUST NEED MORE MUH EDUCATION!" is a skipping CD of abject retardation that nets nothing.

Pathological altruism doesn't change the objective realities of the human condition.

[–] • 1 pt

>Fix the ignorant people, or eliminate them,

Who decides what level of ignorance of which topics warrants...ahem...elimination?

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Speaking of idiots, you just wrote:

" ... but that does not make it ok to treat each other with disrespect ... "

If you believe that you are due respect or that a third party can enforce respect towards you by others, you are a fucking redditarded. Or, otherwise known as a woman. If you want to know WHAT human trait weaknesses COMMUNISM (read: jew mind tricks on the goyim) exploits in order to enter a civilization, this is one of them.

Congratulations, on the extra chromosome.

Faggot.

[–] • 0 pt

"Re-spect": to look again. It doesn't mean to approve, only to acknowledge.

[–] • 1 pt

I think I get where you are coming from.

[–] • 0 pt

Disagree. "Equal in dignity under the law" is the same platitude bullshit as "Equity".

Some jiggaboo spear chucker peddling heroine to homeless people, should not have a vote equal to mine.

Fuck you.

[–] • 3 pts

Here's where I get tripped up on the latter item: while Anschluss can be forgiven (since most Austrians were fully in support of it), Hitler's invasion of France and the low countries, as well as the march to Moscow, were not things that "good guys" do.

And while Japan was somewhat baited into Pearl Harbor, there were ways to avoid war. And at minimum, their actions in China and the Philippines were outright atrocious.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Hitler's invasion of France

Taken in isolation, that could be true. But considered in the cold light of what the jews and the French inflicted on the German people during the inter-war period under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles? They didn't get half of what they had coming to them.

And as far as Russia is concerned, we now know that Operation Barbarossa was in fact a spoiling attack, because Stalin, by the Russian's own records, was planning and preparing to attack first.

[–] • 0 pt

Totally agree that Versailles by itself was eventually going to lead to significant issues. Terrible, awful Treaty. But its still a pretty high bar to climb to justify that invading France was a "good" action.

I see your point on the potential for Barbarossa to be a spoiling attack...but did Hitler ever claim it that way? Right or wrong, smart strategy or otherwise, he was the one who broke Molotov-Ribbentrop.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

But its still a pretty high bar to climb to justify that invading France was a "good" action.

I guess you'd have to live for about a decade with a foreign boot on your neck before you could make a clear decision about that. Look up "The Scicilian Vespers" . That's why after WW2 we went with the Marshall Plan instead. We'd seen what trying to crush people in defeat had wrought.

I see your point on the potential for Barbarossa to be a spoiling attack...but did Hitler ever claim it that way? Right or wrong, smart strategy or otherwise, he was the one who broke Molotov-Ribbentrop.

There have been several authoritative historical books written on this subject. They are easy to find. The source material used was Stalin's invasion plans and the intel that the German High Command used to convince Hitler of the necessity of striking first.

Do you know when a fight starts? It starts long before the first punch is thrown. It starts the moment one of two people decides that there's going to be a fight. Say you're in a bar, and you happen to look over and see a guy glaring at you. He picks up a beer bottle by the neck and starts bee-lining through the crowd toward you in a purposeful manner. Now, you don't have to know him. You don't need to know what his problem with you may be. But you are now in fight. Now you can sit back and just wait and accept whatever he's going to do to you, right, wrong or indifferent, or you can get to work.

[–] • 0 pt

Fucking up (((bolsheviks))) is something good guys do. In fact, the SS was a pan-european reactionary movement to counter communist aggressions....There were more Benelux SS than German SS at points.

As to France, they already tried a failed invasion of Germany in 1939, and this idea that the French citizenry were wholesale against the occupation and in support of La Resistance is just kike hollywood agitprop lies. Many supported the Vichy regime, with good reason.

[–] • 0 pt

Hitler's bigger infraction was invading Norway, a neutral nation that was zero military threat, in order to insure ports on the North Sea. Forcing a nation to accept a puppet government they never wanted is wrong.

[–] • 2 pts

The question is, would you have preferred that stalin had captured that port?

Because that is the question the German's asked.

Small mercies come in unexpected forms.

[–] • 1 pt

Agree, and also don't disagree with GetCynical on the Stalin-capturing-the-port angle.

Ultimately Hitler did not do a good job of PR. Similar to Putin right now, if we're being honest. Perhaps, like Putin, he didn't care what the West thought.

[–] • 0 pt

Well the victor writes the history, so the PR game is a cost-benefit analysis.

There are points in geopolitics where saying "Fuck optics, I'm going in" is warranted.

[–] • 0 pt

Forcing a nation to accept a puppet government they never wanted is wrong.

He said in Biden's America.

[–] • 0 pt

I would like to offer to you the possibility that The Rape of Nanjing was entirely atrocity propaganda printed by newspapers, from whole cloth.

Ask yourself what is one of the ultimate taboos in japan?

Now ask yourself, what was the atrocity central to the rape of nanjing.

The answer is in the name.

[–] • 1 pt

Honestly this is the first time I've heard that this aspect of WW2 was potentially made up. Of course we all know about the magical super-efficient gas chambers and their wooden doors, but this one is new to me. I will have to do some research on that.

[–] • 0 pt

Honestly this is the first time I've heard that this aspect of WW2 was potentially made up.

I am happy to have expanded the possibilities under consideration.

I wish I remembered the sources and details that made me question it myself.

[–] • 0 pt

This is so perfect.