Antifa Explained

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You didn't watch the video.

If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Mussolini was far less racist than FDR, or Churchill.

In fact, I don't think Mussolini was racist at all.... Anything he did was likely to appease the Hitler he feared later on.... Key word is later on.

Which proves Fascism doesn't have to be racist.

Benito Mussolini - Wikiquote


Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

• Talks with Mussolini (1932)

I have no love for the Jews, but they have great influence everywhere. It is better to leave them alone. Hitler's antisemitism has already brought him more enemies than is necessary.

• Mussolini in conversation with the Austrian ambassador to Italy in 1932 over the then-predicted rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. As quoted in Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Albert S. Lindemann, Cambridge University Press (1997), p466.

 

[sakinago]

You didn't watch the video.

If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Mussolini was far less racist than FDR, or Churchill.

In fact, I don't think Mussolini was racist at all.... Anything he did was likely to appease the Hitler he feared later on.... Key word is later on.

Which proves Fascism doesn't have to be racist.

Benito Mussolini - Wikiquote


Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

• Talks with Mussolini (1932)

I have no love for the Jews, but they have great influence everywhere. It is better to leave them alone. Hitler's antisemitism has already brought him more enemies than is necessary.

• Mussolini in conversation with the Austrian ambassador to Italy in 1932 over the then-predicted rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. As quoted in Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Albert S. Lindemann, Cambridge University Press (1997), p466.

And Mussolini was such a bad leader his own people hung him? When’s the last time a world leader was executed by a large group of their own citizens in the western world?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You didn't watch the video.

If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Mussolini was far less racist than FDR, or Churchill.

In fact, I don't think Mussolini was racist at all.... Anything he did was likely to appease the Hitler he feared later on.... Key word is later on.

Which proves Fascism doesn't have to be racist.

Benito Mussolini - Wikiquote


Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

• Talks with Mussolini (1932)

I have no love for the Jews, but they have great influence everywhere. It is better to leave them alone. Hitler's antisemitism has already brought him more enemies than is necessary.

• Mussolini in conversation with the Austrian ambassador to Italy in 1932 over the then-predicted rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. As quoted in Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Albert S. Lindemann, Cambridge University Press (1997), p466.

And Mussolini was such a bad leader his own people hung him? When’s the last time a world leader was executed by a large group of their own citizens in the western world?

None of this changes that Mussolini killed a lot less than many people in WW2.... As I outlined in this comment below.

Antifa Explained


Eh.... It's actually possible.... ANTIFA could to our current guy.... IF not for security.... If they got enough backing... Perhaps they could still.

 

[sakinago]

You didn't watch the video.

If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Mussolini was far less racist than FDR, or Churchill.

In fact, I don't think Mussolini was racist at all.... Anything he did was likely to appease the Hitler he feared later on.... Key word is later on.

Which proves Fascism doesn't have to be racist.

Benito Mussolini - Wikiquote


Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

• Talks with Mussolini (1932)

I have no love for the Jews, but they have great influence everywhere. It is better to leave them alone. Hitler's antisemitism has already brought him more enemies than is necessary.

• Mussolini in conversation with the Austrian ambassador to Italy in 1932 over the then-predicted rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. As quoted in Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Albert S. Lindemann, Cambridge University Press (1997), p466.

And Mussolini was such a bad leader his own people hung him? When’s the last time a world leader was executed by a large group of their own citizens in the western world?

None of this changes that Mussolini killed a lot less than many people in WW2.... As I outlined in this comment below.

Antifa Explained


Eh.... It's actually possible.... ANTIFA could to our current guy.... IF not for security.... If they got enough backing... Perhaps they could still.

Uh why are you praising a joke of a leader in the western world. Mussolini didn’t even really believe in fascism, Hitler was a true convicted believer, Mussolini’s was all about himself. And his people hung him for it, because he dragged them down with his inept narcissism...time for you to go away. I don’t care if your a troll or if you’re serious, your adding nothing intellectually honest to the discussion, your views are wildly paradoxical, flat out stupid, and just plain wrong, for reasons I don’t even have enough to type. Ignore button time.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You didn't watch the video.

If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Mussolini was far less racist than FDR, or Churchill.

In fact, I don't think Mussolini was racist at all.... Anything he did was likely to appease the Hitler he feared later on.... Key word is later on.

Which proves Fascism doesn't have to be racist.

Benito Mussolini - Wikiquote


Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

• Talks with Mussolini (1932)

I have no love for the Jews, but they have great influence everywhere. It is better to leave them alone. Hitler's antisemitism has already brought him more enemies than is necessary.

• Mussolini in conversation with the Austrian ambassador to Italy in 1932 over the then-predicted rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. As quoted in Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Albert S. Lindemann, Cambridge University Press (1997), p466.

And Mussolini was such a bad leader his own people hung him? When’s the last time a world leader was executed by a large group of their own citizens in the western world?

None of this changes that Mussolini killed a lot less than many people in WW2.... As I outlined in this comment below.

Antifa Explained


Eh.... It's actually possible.... ANTIFA could to our current guy.... IF not for security.... If they got enough backing... Perhaps they could still.

Uh why are you praising a joke of a leader in the western world. Mussolini didn’t even really believe in fascism, Hitler was a true convicted believer, Mussolini’s was all about himself. And his people hung him for it, because he dragged them down with his inept narcissism...time for you to go away. I don’t care if your a troll or if you’re serious, your adding nothing intellectually honest to the discussion, your views are wildly paradoxical, flat out stupid, and just plain wrong, for reasons I don’t even have enough to type. Ignore button time.

Show me where I am praising Mussolini?

More like I am seeing him no differently than many regimes which are praised of in the West.

Churchill, FDR, and Truman were all worse than Mussolini in mass murder during WW2.

So, if people can worship those leaders, why not Mussolini?

I am personally a Fascist none the less..... Because I think it's actually more logical, and efficient overall.....That includes in terms of economics.

Fascism has achieved better economic growth overall than Capitalism.

Spanish miracle - Wikipedia

 

[antifa]

People are people. I know a few Antifa who are conservative or libertarian. Not liking fascists is something we all should agree on.

Anyone with a brain does, however, if you engage in acts of violence against people who are having a rally, and those people happen to have a philosophy that you don't approve of, you are engaging in fascist behavior. This is the USA and the ONLY language that is protected by the COTUS is hate speech. Lovey dovey speech doesn't need to be protected, but hate speech does. This country was founded on the principle that if you are a moron, and you want to tell the world just how big a moron you are, you have that Right. No one has the Right to shut them up.

These are people who refer to minorities as dogs or animals. They brag about the good old days when lynching was a fun way to spend the weekend. There is no way to avoid another civil war unless middle class suburbia wakes up to where we are headed.

Stop normalizing and protecting white supremacists. That allows them to think they are mainstream.

Yeah? So? That is what the First Amendment was written for. To protect imbeciles like that. I am not the one protecting them, the FIRST AMENDMENT is. If you don't like living in a country where people are encouraged to speak their minds then I suggest this isn't the country for you to live in.

I have the same right to deal with these imbeciles as I choose. You decided it is OK for a mod to equate me with fascists while being misinformed on what Antifa is about.

USMB is infested with white supremacists so this is a good place as any for me to pimp slap these retarded crybabies.

No, you don't. You may set up shop right next door and yell, and scream, and carry on about how stupid they are. But you may NOT engage in violent behavior towards them. If you do you are violating their Right to free speech, and you are engaging in the tactics of fascism. Fascists deny the people their ability to speak.

And I know full well what antifa is about. I have eyes.

Go read the Antifa manual. lmao

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

 

[antifa]

You didn't watch the video.

We don’t need to watch the video. Antifas actions are enough to suffice, and actually tell the truth of what they are about. If your goal is to shut down free speech, heckle and try to shut down or shout over speakers, instead of debating them, then you’re a fascist. If you run around with masks and weapons, punching “fascists” in the face because of their views, your a fascist. If you wish to label everything you don’t like or find offensive as hate speech that should be banned, you’re a fascist. If you call rioting and angry mobs carrying out violence and destruction of property circa third Reich era browncoats, “protesting”, you’re probably a fascist. If you want to wildly unfairly generalize and lump together large diverse groups of people, and call the derogatory names, you’re a fascist. If you’re out there recreating crystal nacht, because of fascism, you’re a fascist. If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Go debate a republican and let me know how that works out.

 

[westwall]

Pure ignorance! You are a very unintelligent guy.

Totalitarianism, in the form of an unelected dictator, in theory could be a good thing if you get a good, strong and kind leader. A great King who makes all the right choices!
Yet that is a very rare occurrence. The vast majority of dictators let the power corrupt them, they create an elitist group of their cronies and the common folk suffer. They eventually are about only personal gain and see the people as pawns for their gain. Even if you get that very rare great and kind leader, they are usually followed by a unqualified child who led a privileged life and knows nothing of or doesn’t care about the suffering of others. Either way it leads to the same oppressive regime.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong, you are the very unintelligent guy, like most of the Jews on this forum.

You didn't cover anything of what I said about lack of government leading to Social Liberalism.... You went off on some tirade about oppression....

Actually even Communist regimes were generally more Socially Conservative than Capitalist regimes.

Some Nationalists in Eastern Europe want Communism back, because Communism had much less immigration, worse rights for Gays, and less rights for Jews.

In dictatorships it is forced upon people. Gun rights? Nope, your dictator hero’s always disarm the common folk.

Hitler actually supported more Guns for Germans, however Jews on the other hand were disarmed.

That is false. The ONLY Germans who could get gun permits were Party members. They constituted less than 10% of the population of Germany. Gun control is used to separate the elite from the chattel. The book, The Nazi Seizure of Power go's in to great detail about how every weapon was regulated, including bayonets. You are quite astonishingly wrong on this account.

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Wrong, you are the very unintelligent guy, like most of the Jews on this forum.

You didn't cover anything of what I said about lack of government leading to Social Liberalism.... You went off on some tirade about oppression....

Actually even Communist regimes were generally more Socially Conservative than Capitalist regimes.

Some Nationalists in Eastern Europe want Communism back, because Communism had much less immigration, worse rights for Gays, and less rights for Jews.

In dictatorships it is forced upon people. Gun rights? Nope, your dictator hero’s always disarm the common folk.

Hitler actually supported more Guns for Germans, however Jews on the other hand were disarmed.

That is false. The ONLY Germans who could get gun permits were Party members. They constituted less than 10% of the population of Germany. Gun control is used to separate the elite from the chattel. The book, The Nazi Seizure of Power go's in to great detail about how every weapon was regulated, including bayonets. You are quite astonishingly wrong on this account.

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

I'm an advocate of Gun rights.... Nazis did definitely disarm Jews, and enemies of the state.... Regular Germans on the other hand..... Actually saw a benefit in having more guns in comparison to the previous regime which created massive gun-control.

 

[westwall]

In dictatorships it is forced upon people. Gun rights? Nope, your dictator hero’s always disarm the common folk.

Hitler actually supported more Guns for Germans, however Jews on the other hand were disarmed.

That is false. The ONLY Germans who could get gun permits were Party members. They constituted less than 10% of the population of Germany. Gun control is used to separate the elite from the chattel. The book, The Nazi Seizure of Power go's in to great detail about how every weapon was regulated, including bayonets. You are quite astonishingly wrong on this account.

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

I'm an advocate of Gun rights.... Nazis did definitely disarm Jews, and enemies of the state.... Regular Germans on the other hand..... Actually saw a benefit in having more guns in comparison to the previous regime which created massive gun-control.

They declared almost everyone an enemy of the State. It was extraordinarily difficult for a normal person to obtain a gun permit. The net result was if you were a Party member you could obtain one, if you weren't it was nearly impossible. And no, if you are an authoritarian you don't believe in gun Rights for the people. You want to take them away. That's how you remain in power.

 

[sakinago]

You didn't watch the video.

We don’t need to watch the video. Antifas actions are enough to suffice, and actually tell the truth of what they are about. If your goal is to shut down free speech, heckle and try to shut down or shout over speakers, instead of debating them, then you’re a fascist. If you run around with masks and weapons, punching “fascists” in the face because of their views, your a fascist. If you wish to label everything you don’t like or find offensive as hate speech that should be banned, you’re a fascist. If you call rioting and angry mobs carrying out violence and destruction of property circa third Reich era browncoats, “protesting”, you’re probably a fascist. If you want to wildly unfairly generalize and lump together large diverse groups of people, and call the derogatory names, you’re a fascist. If you’re out there recreating crystal nacht, because of fascism, you’re a fascist. If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Go debate a republican and let me know how that works out.

I do all the time, with better results. Believe it or not they are more intellectually honest. Take for instance your dribble response to my post...are you arguing for 2 wrongs make a right? If so that should’ve been debunked by like the 2nd grade for you. I can’t really back people who don’t believe in free speech, who believe in censorship, violence over debate of ideas, destroying property of the innocent, you know all the things that are fascistic in nature.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Hitler actually supported more Guns for Germans, however Jews on the other hand were disarmed.

That is false. The ONLY Germans who could get gun permits were Party members. They constituted less than 10% of the population of Germany. Gun control is used to separate the elite from the chattel. The book, The Nazi Seizure of Power go's in to great detail about how every weapon was regulated, including bayonets. You are quite astonishingly wrong on this account.

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

I'm an advocate of Gun rights.... Nazis did definitely disarm Jews, and enemies of the state.... Regular Germans on the other hand..... Actually saw a benefit in having more guns in comparison to the previous regime which created massive gun-control.

And no, if you are an authoritarian you don't believe in gun Rights for the people. You want to take them away. That's how you remain in power.

I don't support taking away guns... Nor am I a total authoritarian ... I support just enough to fix this broken messed up society we call America.

Nazi gun control theory - Wikipedia

Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[7] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[4]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.[4]:670,676 The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.[8]:533,536

 

[westwall]

That is false. The ONLY Germans who could get gun permits were Party members. They constituted less than 10% of the population of Germany. Gun control is used to separate the elite from the chattel. The book, The Nazi Seizure of Power go's in to great detail about how every weapon was regulated, including bayonets. You are quite astonishingly wrong on this account.

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

I'm an advocate of Gun rights.... Nazis did definitely disarm Jews, and enemies of the state.... Regular Germans on the other hand..... Actually saw a benefit in having more guns in comparison to the previous regime which created massive gun-control.

And no, if you are an authoritarian you don't believe in gun Rights for the people. You want to take them away. That's how you remain in power.

I don't support taking away guns... Nor am I a total authoritarian ... I support just enough to fix this broken messed up society we call America.

Nazi gun control theory - Wikipedia

Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[7] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[4]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.[4]:670,676 The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.[8]:533,536

wiki is not a credible source. Find something that not every tom dick or harry can modify to suit his particular position.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

I'm an advocate of Gun rights.... Nazis did definitely disarm Jews, and enemies of the state.... Regular Germans on the other hand..... Actually saw a benefit in having more guns in comparison to the previous regime which created massive gun-control.

And no, if you are an authoritarian you don't believe in gun Rights for the people. You want to take them away. That's how you remain in power.

I don't support taking away guns... Nor am I a total authoritarian ... I support just enough to fix this broken messed up society we call America.

Nazi gun control theory - Wikipedia

Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[1] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[7] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[4]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens.[4]:670,676 The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.[8]:533,536

wiki is not a credible source. Find something that not every tom dick or harry can modify to suit his particular position.

Just what I've been saying.

Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?

So did Hitler and the Nazis really take away Germans’ guns, making the Holocaust unavoidable? This argument is superficially true at best, as University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explained in a 2004 paper (PDF) on Nazi Germany’s impact on the American culture wars. As World War I drew to a close, the new Weimar Republic government banned nearly all private gun ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles and mandated that all guns and ammunition “be surrendered immediately.” The law was loosened in 1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens “of undoubted reliability” (in the law’s words) but not “persons who are itinerant like Gypsies.” In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.

“But guns didn’t play a particularly important part in any event,” says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland’s political science department and has extensively researched gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy “wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group.”

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Wrong, Fascists are usually very Socially Conservative, and for Hierarchy, and Tradition. therefor they are moslty Right-Wing.

Economically Liberalism actually means Free Markets.

Most Americans are very, very Liberal.... Individualists are the true Liberals.

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4]. 693, 721[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11]or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system".[14]

Economic liberalism - Wikipedia

Economic liberalism is an economic system organized on individual lines, which means the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households than by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, such as freedom of movement, but its basis is on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.

Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also considered opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.[2] It also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets.

An economy that is managed according to these precepts may be described as a liberal economy.

That's Fabian Socialist propaganda. Collectivist/Anarchy. Those are the two extremes dude.

The term Left-Wing terms come from Europe.... They seem to be not well understood in the U.S.A... Because our school systems don't focus much, if at all on them... If they do it's too late.

I don't deny that yes Nazis did have some Left Wing workers rights of Socialism.

However, everything else about Nazis was Far Right having an extreme support of Hierarchy, and extreme focus on Traditions, (Social Conservative values)

Aaaaaaand the Soviet Union under Stalin was what exactly?

Stalin obviously did believe in some ethnic hierarchy. struggles... So absolutely he's not a pure Leftist Communist by definition.

That's not to say that violence is necessary in ethnic disputes.... Obviously Stalin thought so in some cases.

That okay Stalin's mass-murder of Poles with bullets was a violent ethnic hierarchy struggle.

Polish Operation of the NKVD - Wikipedia
'
But, that say Polish Soviet Golulka's anti-Zionist purge was which didn't really harm much of anything, was more of a assertive, but overall a non-violent ethnic hierarchy struggle.

1968 Polish political crisis - Wikipedia

Feel free to show us the difference in practical terms between the citizens experience had they lived in either the Soviet Union or fascist Germany.

List out the differences.

In Russia, nostalgia for Soviet Union and positive feelings about Stalin

This just kind of proves that yes.... There is vast kicking, and screaming about Nazis, Fascists, and Racists to diminish them.... If the Elites have planned for it... Then Fascism is obviously good... It is anti-Globalism, right?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Hitler actually supported more Guns for Germans, however Jews on the other hand were disarmed.

That is false. The ONLY Germans who could get gun permits were Party members. They constituted less than 10% of the population of Germany. Gun control is used to separate the elite from the chattel. The book, The Nazi Seizure of Power go's in to great detail about how every weapon was regulated, including bayonets. You are quite astonishingly wrong on this account.

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

I'm an advocate of Gun rights.... Nazis did definitely disarm Jews, and enemies of the state.... Regular Germans on the other hand..... Actually saw a benefit in having more guns in comparison to the previous regime which created massive gun-control.

if you are an authoritarian you don't believe in gun Rights for the people. You want to take them away. That's how you remain in power.

I support the opposite of the elite.... You've said you met with them, and their basically awful beings.

So, if the elite kick, and scream about Fascism, Racism, Gun Control as wrong, and Tolerance, Gay Pride, and Abortion as right.

Then... I think that yes.... There is something wrong with the elite.

That yes.... Fascism could be the best way to combat the Elite Globalist scums.

Most Neo-Fascists do despise elites, Jews, Globalists, and so forth.... UNLIKE Paleo-Conservatives... or worse Neo-Conservatives.... The Fascist has an outline how to seize power from them by Asserting dominance over society from a Grass roots movement from mostly the bottom.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Not really, there's actually far more similarities between Republicans, and Democrats than between the groups you're describing.

It turns out most modern Republicans, and Democrats are probably actually Liberals by definition....

Liberalism - Wikipedia

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Wrong. There are only two governmental types. Collectivist and individualist. Totalitarian dictatorship is the ultimate form of collectivist government, and absolute anarchy is the ultimate form of individualist non government. Fascism, socialism, and communism are all fundamentally collectivist. Thus they are all left wing.

Not really, there's actually far more similarities between Republicans, and Democrats than between the groups you're describing.

It turns out most modern Republicans, and Democrats are probably actually Liberals by definition....

Liberalism - Wikipedia

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Wrong. There are only two governmental types. Collectivist and individualist. Totalitarian dictatorship is the ultimate form of collectivist government, and absolute anarchy is the ultimate form of individualist non government. Fascism, socialism, and communism are all fundamentally collectivist. Thus they are all left wing.

Oh please, Anarchy would lead to a society filled with Immigrants, Abortion, Druggies ,Porn, and Gay Marriage ( Social Liberalism) because they wouldn't do anything about these.

Most Fascists understand that in order to keep a Socially Conservative environment Totalitarianism is needed.

That's EXACTLY why Republicans have been failing, they support the freedom to be dominated by Liberalism, and Free markets sells out to Liberalism overwhelmingly.

Even if you get that very rare great and kind leader, they are usually followed by a unqualified child who led a privileged life and knows nothing of or doesn’t care about the suffering of others. Either way it leads to the same oppressive regime.

I think that some groups are just more violent.... I think Government only is minimal in it..

But... Here's the thing... We could only cleanse the society of most of it's violence by Totalitarian Eugenics.

Some nasty genocides / mass murder events have indeed come from limited Governments too.

No government.

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia - Wikipedia

Small government.

Rwandan genocide - Wikipedia

Very limited government.

Rhineland massacres - Wikipedia

No government.

Selk'nam genocide - Wikipedia

Virtually no government.

1971 Bangladesh genocide - Wikipedia

No government.

Darfur genocide - Wikipedia

Ok this guy is definitely a troll.

No. I'm a troll. Polish dude is just Polish dude.

Learn what you can from him and ignore the bad/things you disagree with and move on.

PS: Where's ANTIFAggot go?

Polish dude thinks Polacks are better than Americanized Polacks.

I beg to differ.

 

[antifa]

You didn't watch the video.

We don’t need to watch the video. Antifas actions are enough to suffice, and actually tell the truth of what they are about. If your goal is to shut down free speech, heckle and try to shut down or shout over speakers, instead of debating them, then you’re a fascist. If you run around with masks and weapons, punching “fascists” in the face because of their views, your a fascist. If you wish to label everything you don’t like or find offensive as hate speech that should be banned, you’re a fascist. If you call rioting and angry mobs carrying out violence and destruction of property circa third Reich era browncoats, “protesting”, you’re probably a fascist. If you want to wildly unfairly generalize and lump together large diverse groups of people, and call the derogatory names, you’re a fascist. If you’re out there recreating crystal nacht, because of fascism, you’re a fascist. If your pre judging people (pre-judge...prejudge...prejudice, that’s where the term comes from), based on skin color, sex, gender, age, religion, etc...you’re a fascist.

Go debate a republican and let me know how that works out.

I do all the time, with better results. Believe it or not they are more intellectually honest. Take for instance your dribble response to my post...are you arguing for 2 wrongs make a right? If so that should’ve been debunked by like the 2nd grade for you. I can’t really back people who don’t believe in free speech, who believe in censorship, violence over debate of ideas, destroying property of the innocent, you know all the things that are fascistic in nature.

You are only fooling yourself if you think anything productive will come from debating a republican.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Wrong, you are the very unintelligent guy, like most of the Jews on this forum.

You didn't cover anything of what I said about lack of government leading to Social Liberalism.... You went off on some tirade about oppression....

Actually even Communist regimes were generally more Socially Conservative than Capitalist regimes.

Some Nationalists in Eastern Europe want Communism back, because Communism had much less immigration, worse rights for Gays, and less rights for Jews.

In dictatorships it is forced upon people. Gun rights? Nope, your dictator hero’s always disarm the common folk.

Hitler actually supported more Guns for Germans, however Jews on the other hand were disarmed.

That is false. The ONLY Germans who could get gun permits were Party members. They constituted less than 10% of the population of Germany. Gun control is used to separate the elite from the chattel. The book, The Nazi Seizure of Power go's in to great detail about how every weapon was regulated, including bayonets. You are quite astonishingly wrong on this account.

According to everything I've read right before Hitler there was already a massive gun ban in Germany, and Hitler loosened the guns for Germans in comparison but weakened them on Jews, and other enemies of the state.

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Try reading better sources.


"There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Part II of the book opens with the naming of Hitler as chancellor of Germany at the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists). As a result, less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble, and the right to privacy in personal communications. Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich."


Gun Control in Nazi Germany

I'm anti-Nazi... In fact I believe that Anthony Sutton accurately shows it was a Capitalist elite Wall Street product.

IMO.... Nazis were used by the elites to create a backlash for the modern society.

I believe the Elites feared Mussolini because his Fascism was popular and targeted the Elite, and promoted Nation first. (Anti-Globalism)

So, the Globalist Banker Capitalists financed Hitler to power, to basically have him kill as many of Europe's best, and brightest as possible,,,,,, To effectively create an ANTIFA backlash.... That they did this to detriment Fascism's chances, and to detriment the chances of Racial purity from taking hold.

..
...
.... HOWEVER Neo-Nazis believe the opposite.

They believe Hitler stood up to the Banks, Jews, and Free-Masons because he was Anti- Globalist N.W.O

It is possible.... Churchill, and FDR, and Truman were all Free-Masons.

...
... But.... I think Anthony Sutton makes that view skeptical.

..
.... My view 100% is definitely the Globalist scums used Hitler as a fall guy to create a Globalist Liberal backlash.... Whether as Neo-Nazis claim by Hitler losing the War, of all Wars against the N.W.O.... Or as I think a sort of False Flag..