“Hitler was democratically elected” (1975- ) is something you hear, at least in the US, at least since the 1970s. Strictly speaking it is wrong: when Hitler ran for president of Germany in 1932, he lost. He only got 37% of the vote (compare that to Donald Trump’s current 42%). But in a more general sense it is true: the rise of Hitler came through democratic means.
Bernie Sanders:
“A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”
In 1932 there were four nationwide elections in Germany: two for the Reichstag (parliament) and two for president. By the end of it all, Hitler lost the presidential election to Paul von Hindenburg, 53% to 37%, but the Nazis, his party, won a plurality in parliament of 33%.
That 33% for the Nazis might not sound like much, but it was way better than any other party. On top of that, the Nazis were the only party with broad support, from both Catholics and Protestants, rich and poor, young and old, men and women, town and country. They had strong support from business and the middle class. That made Hitler the natural choice to become chancellor (prime minister) to form a majority coalition.
So in January 1933, Hindenburg, as president, made Hitler chancellor. Those on the right had assured Hindenburg that they would be able to control Hitler: he needed them to have a majority in parliament. But in practice they were not able to control him.
Hitler moved on limiting civil rights almost right away, particularly rights of protest and free speech. Then, when a fire broke out at the Reichstag in February, he blamed the communists. He got enough people afraid of a communist uprising – unfounded fears as it turned out – that he got President Hindenburg to agree to an emergency decree: the Decree for the Protection of the People and the State. In the name of national security Hitler was able to silence the press and throw anyone he wanted in prison. He was now, in effect, dictator, and he never let go.
So is Trump like Hitler?
Like Trump, Hitler:
- played on people’s fears and racism;
- promised to make his country great again;
- had little regard for civil rights;
- presented himself as a strongman;
- was dismissed as a clown who could be controlled.
Unlike Trump, Hitler:
- had a strong, united party behind him with broad national support;
- faced no strong opposition party;
- had already tried to overthrow the government (in Bavaria in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch);
- had a master of propaganda (Joseph Goebbels).
Also, Germany in 1932 was in way worse shape than the US in 2016: it had lost the First World War and was sunk in the Great Depression with high rates of unemployment and poverty. It was a far more desperate country.
– Abagond, 2016.
Sources: mainly Deutsche Welle and the US Holocaust Museum.
See also:
518
This is an enlightening post this is why Donald Trump is a dangerous individual.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The Reichstag fire,.. the same as September 11, 2001. Instead of the communists it is the terrorists . We are still in a state of national emergency 15 years later
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a reach, and then some. The two men are completely different as are their respective eras. Hitler lived in a homogenous society with a tiny amount of other people’s within his borders, not in a melting pot type society. Although he did have Black volunteers in his foreign legion:
http://moviepilot.com/posts/1215524
Hitler was not a playboy rich guy and Trump not a long time political activist who went to jail. We need to stop comparing every single person to Hitler folks.
LikeLiked by 4 people
@LoM
Good points.
I would add the armaments maker, Krupp.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was Hitler elected in democratic elections? I would say that strictly speaking he really was, though as one of many Representatives by way of votes on his party.
LikeLike
No, I see that you are correct, looking at it strictly, though there is no doubt that he got to power, i.e. chancellor by FULLY DEMOCRATIC means.
LikeLike
Just blow your vote on Jill Stein people. Both Trump and Hilary have no clue and too many hidden agendas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting post and comments. On a related issue, many wingnuts nowadays liken their candidate (for the time being, Trump) to a Churchill as compared to Obama’s supposed Chamberlain with respect to Islam, or Russia, or whatever. This contrast is inapt, but it also presupposes that Chamberlain was wrong. Mustering a nation to war takes a lot more than just a president or prime minister accusing somebody of being a bad guy. The US was successful in WWII because the majority of Americans were convinced at an emotional level that it was a just and right cause. Thus, they tightened their belts voluntarily and shouldered a heavier burden to support the effort. Without this grassroots support, a war effort cannot be sustained. Vietnam, anybody? By the time Churchill came along the evidence of the necessity for war was undeniable. At Chamberlain’s time, not so much. Had Chamberlain declared and pursued a war, it would very likely have looked and felt at home a lot more like Vietnam, with large domestic protests against the war effort.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
From what I understand, business supported Hitler because they feared a communist takeover in which they stood to lose all.
Do you have a source on Woolworth’s Nazi ties?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Lid
So did I Godwin my own post?
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
My own list of Nazi enablers:
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Without this grassroots support, a war effort cannot be sustained.”
@Blanc2
Where are the grassroots support for the overseas wars on terror (13 years now?) beginning with Iraq – to the current wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, etc, etc and proposed wars with Iran and Russia??
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/rare-ww2-german-combatfootage-x.html
LikeLike
@abagond &
@Lord of Mirkwood
“My own list of Nazi enablers”
Don’t forget banksters, in particular one Prescott Bush, father of one pres and grand father of another, likely source of American fascism that has infiltrated the US.and become particular prevalent under his grandson and the treacherous Obama.:
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“In 1933, when the Nazis first came to power, they began an economic war with the Jews, staging boycotts of Jewish businesses across Germany.”
Of course you have it backwards. In 1933 when Nazis first came to power, Jews began an economic war with Germany first, staging boycotts of German products across the world.
Just so you know the facts, i.e. the proper sequence of events.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A little bit off topic but interesting none the less I think; My ex husband was born in Germany shortly after WWII. He told me that at school they were taught absolutely nothing about the war or Hitler. It wasn’t until he was older that he learnt about Him through family and friends. His Mother has passed away now but he still has a younger brother who to this day, along with his Mother, strenuously deny that the holocaust ever happened, They said/say it was Allied propaganda!
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
All I did was correct you. Accept that you were wrong and move on.
LikeLike
How interesting. I never knew about this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933
The boycott was started by Jews outside of Germany, including the U.S., in response to Nazi vandalism of Jewish businesses in Germany. They were hoping to bring economic pressure to bear against the Nazis to end anti-semitic practices in Germany — not all that different a philosophy from the global movement of anti-apartheid sanctions and disinvestment against South Africa. Unfortunately, it didn’t have the same momentum or results.
LikeLike
From the Wiki article:
“A series of protest rallies were held on March 27, 1933, with the New York City rally held at Madison Square Garden with an overflow crowd of 55,000 inside and outside the arena and parallel events held in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia and 70 other locations, with the proceedings at the New York rally broadcast worldwide. Speakers at the Garden included American Federation of Labor president William Green, Senator Robert F. Wagner, former Governor of New York Al Smith and a number of Christian clergyman, joining together in a call for the end of the brutal treatment of German Jews.”
“The Nazis and some outside Germany saw the boycott as an act of aggression, with the British newspaper the Daily Express going so far as to use the headline: ‘Judea Declares War on Germany’. Nazi officials countered the protests as slanders against the Nazis perpetrated by ‘Jews of German origin’, with Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that a series of ‘sharp countermeasures’ would be taken against the Jews of Germany in response to the protests of American Jews.”
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
Patently false, yes — but not enough people stood against the Nazis early enough. I think a balanced view is essential. Many Germans may not have known of the full horror of the death camps, but they knew the Jews were being persecuted and relocated. Very few did anything in opposition. Same with the French, the Poles, etc.
I will admit that reading just now of the protests and boycott in the United States made me a little prouder of my nation. I didn’t know this organized opposition had taken place. But again, it was too little to have the effect necessary to bring down the Nazi regime or even to end anti-semitic measures in Germany. In fact, it appears to have been just enough to backfire badly on the German Jews — many of whom apparently opposed the idea of the boycott from the start.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Lord of Mirkwood
“You actually haven’t proven me wrong on anything yet.”
Did I say I proved you wrong or “correct you”?
“If you admire the Nazis or deny the Holocaust, just come out and say it.”
Wow, you are desperate. Too bad it’s not working.
LikeLike
@resw
///Did I say I proved you wrong or “correct you”? ///
Yes, you did say that:
“All I did was correct you. Accept that you were wrong and move on.”
What you did was similar to saying that Rosa Parks hurt public transport in Montgomery, Alabama, thus causing a lot of racist backlash against blacks.
That might be true, but then you really miss the big picture.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Jeff Elberfeld
This is the point at which Resw spends the next few hours arguing that “Accept that you were wrong” is a completely different statement than “I proved you wrong,” then accuses others of derailing the thread.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Solitaire
Thanks for the warning.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
You took the question wrong here: Did I say I proved you wrong or “correct you”?
He is asking LOM if he said I proved you wrong or if he said “correct you”.
LOM is claiming he said he proved him wrong when that is not what he actually said. He just said he corrected him thus the quotes around the word to emphasis for him.
He did show him as wrong because LOM had it backwards and only admits to poor wording.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
If he did then he has a right to because LOM had it wrong and he would have some respect if he simply admitted it instead of excusing it. He excuses his racism the same way by chopping it up to “poor wording”.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
I said “correct you” not anything about proving anything, thank you.
“What you did was similar to saying that Rosa Parks hurt public transport in Montgomery, Alabama, thus causing a lot of racist backlash against blacks.”
No I didn’t. I said one thing happened before the other, which is a fact. I didn’t offer my opinion about anything. It’s all in your imagination.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
My first comment to Lord of Mirkwood was 100% on topic. And 100% correct. You’re the only one derailing the thread, because your foolish opinion about what I say is 100% irrelevant.
LikeLike
@ resw
You’re so adorable!
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Thanks for your rational insight. People don’t like being corrected as we can clearly see, but I make no apologies calling out historical revisionism when I see it. This is a prime example that Lord of Mirkwood and jewish “propagandists” love putting out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Putin’s rise to power was also democratic
LikeLike
@ resw
From what I’ve read so far on this topic, the order of events appears to be:
1) Nazis vandalize Jewish businesses, destroy Jewish property, and physically assault Jews in Germany
2) Jews in the United States call for an economic boycott in protest of Nazi anti-semitism in Germany, a boycott which is joined by some Christians
3) Nazis respond not by boycotting U.S. products but with an economic boycott against Jews in Germany who were not involved in the international boycott (and many of whom even opposed it)
Correct? Or “jewish propaganda”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Lord of Mirkwood
Please, you would have blended in with the rest of the majority. And no one for a second believes you have the balls to actually speak out against any injustices committed by the government against a minority, unless they’re Irish.
And what does your scorn for accurate history tell us about your true nature? Or your thirsty attempts to baselessly label someone as a “Nazi Propagandist”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Lord of Mirkwood
“So Rosa Parks and E.D. Nixon started all the problems in the South? We can just pin George Wallace’s actions on them, eh?”—Nice straw man. If you want to have an adult discussion then I am willing to, but if you are going to play childish games then for once I am going to pass.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
His comment just shows his racist colours. As well as Jeff Elberfeld’s.
LikeLike
@Resw
When it comes to revisionist history it needs to be called out because this same revisionist history is why so many cultures have simply been erased and simplified for the American public. There was a series of events. The additional information does not make what happened to the Jews more acceptable yet it gets deleted as if Germans woke up one day and decided they did not like their look and threw them in camps over the course of 24hrs.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“You spout anti-Semitic BS”
Such as? Please quote it instead of lying.
“Solitaire has got the sequence of events right on the nose.”
Who said he didn’t? I called you out on your historical revisionism. But nice deflection from it.
@sharinalr
Agreed. Revisionism happens frequently among racist Western historians, the racist mainstream media, and their racist sheep, like Lord of Mirkwood.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“The additional information does not make what happened to the Jews more acceptable yet it gets deleted as if Germans woke up one day and decided they did not like their look and threw them in camps over the course of 24hrs.”
It’s established historical fact and widely known that anti-Jewish laws and violence were widespread in Europe — not just Germany — for centuries prior to the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust.
The European Jews were a pariah group, discriminated against and subject to murderous waves of mass hysteria, for close to a thousand years, at least from the time of the First Crusade if not earlier.
What the Nazis did is firmly rooted in that historical context.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
Sorry to disappoint, but if Resw wants to assume I’m male, I’m not going to get my knickers in a knot about it — not after all the grief Resw gave me for making similar assumptions on the alt-right thread. I’m trying to stay on the general topic of Hitler, Nazis, and Jews here.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
I see you weren’t able to quote anything to prove your BS claims. What you misconstrued is a matter of reading comprehension (I blame your school and parents for that, not you).
@Solitaire
In English grammar, “he” has long been acceptable as a generic pronoun. Unlike you I never spent several posts divining someone’s age, gender, race, etc., nor have I ever made a fuss about someone referring to me as “he” or “she”, nor do I care.
But it’s yet another instance of you derailing the thread.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“It’s established historical fact and widely known that anti-Jewish laws and violence were widespread in Europe — not just Germany — for centuries prior to the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust.”—Which I don’t seem to be disputing, but it does not change that a series of events took place. Germans did not wake up one morning and start harassing or hating Jews.
Thank you for adding additional information to my point.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“Please explain what you think is historically revisionist about discussing the fact that the Nazis were anti-Semitic. ”
Did anyone make that claim here? No.You’re just deflecting from the fact that you got the sequence of events wrong. It really isn’t a big deal but I guess we can’t expect someone like you to have enough dignity to accept you were wrong and move on.
“See if you can do so without resorting to the Israel straw man.”
LOL. You are the one and only person to bring up “Israel” on this thread. Since you continue be the deceitful degenerate your parents raised you to be, I won’t be answering your questions.
LikeLike
@ resw
“In English grammar, “he” has long been acceptable as a generic pronoun.”
The male default, eh? For the last ~45 years, “he” has become increasingly unacceptable as a generic pronoun, at least in the United States. At any rate, personally I prefer to not be misgendered.
“nor have I ever made a fuss about someone referring to me as “he” or “she”, nor do I care.”
Actually, you’ve recently called someone sexist on at least one occasion for referring to you as “she.” Interestingly, I have yet to see you respond the same way to being referred to as “he.”
But that’s neither here or there. I asked you a direct question relating to the topic here:
You have yet to answer it, preferring to engage with me on OT subjects.
Can I get a simple yes or no answer to my question, please?
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“but it does not change that a series of events took place. Germans did not wake up one morning and start harassing or hating Jews.”
What do you see as the series of events that led the Germans to hate, harass, and oppress the Jews?
LikeLike
talk about drones and crap, that war history video i just posted on the 3rd reich’s regular army mostly, wehrmacht? it is just a radio and a handgun and a rifle and crew served automatic weapons maybe flimsier cars is all
LikeLike
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“At any rate, personally I prefer to not be misgendered.”
Since I don’t know you from the next person, I can’t possibly be expected to know what your gender is. Nor do I care because it’s completely irrelevant.
“Actually, you’ve recently called someone sexist on at least one occasion for referring to you as “she.””
No, if you actually read gro jo’s comment and my response, you’d see I said gro jo’s comment was sexist, FYI. I said nothing about him being sexist for calling me a “she” or “he”. But nice try!
“Can I get a simple yes or no answer to my question, please?”
No, I won’t be answering asinine questions, as I may have told you before.
LikeLike
@ resw
Excuse me? Asking you whether my understanding of the timeline of events re the Jewish and Nazi boycotts is correct or not is an asinine question? How so?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“What do you see as the series of events that led the Germans to hate, harass, and oppress the Jews?”—I hate that this needs to be explained because your pettiness is getting annoying.
The German part of it was an example. I am simply saying that a series of events took place. I am not laying claim to which came first or even how it came about. Regardless LOM still got the sequence wrong and it needed to be corrected.
Do you need me to break the comment down for you for better understanding? Would it help you if I took the comment is parted it into sections for clarity.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Wow. No, I don’t need you to do anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is interestin project phoenix rand corporation a computer program to categorize human politics and guns. Vietnam. And then all you no bs friends are marines like what do you do
LikeLike
Here is the one comment Resw made regarding LOM comment:
“Of course you have it backwards. In 1933 when Nazis first came to power, Jews began an economic war with Germany first, staging boycotts of German products across the world.”
From here Rew has called him revisionist or Jewish propagandist. Then from there he merely responded to all of yall assumptions about what he was saying. You guys literally created a hidden message in what you believed was being said and ran with it. This is the same crazy stuff kiwi does. Takes a simple sentence and creates a meaning behind it, then goes on long arguments over it. He can maintain his ambiguity and you guys will just create an argument for him.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
In chronological order:
Resw uses a photo out of context: this was a headline from a newspaper in Britain, but without proper explanation the viewer could interpret it an actual printed declaration of “war” by “Judea”. (The photo is taken from a website that proudly declares one of its founders to have been a Hitler Youth under Nazi Germany.)
It’s difficult to exactly pinpoint anything in the debate between Resw and Jeff Elberfeld because so much of it is implied rather than directly stated. Jeff’s statement is absolutely correct, but Resw has been careful to imply and therefore is able to weasel out of it.
The fact of the matter is, this boycott is a favorite topic of Nazi apologists, who like to suggest that the Jews aggressively attacked an impoverished Germany and thus brought their own fate on their heads, as can be evidenced in this website here (among many others): http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html
I can’t say for certain but I suspect Jeff Elberfeld was aware of the above fact, considering how he jumped on Resw’s remark. I wasn’t aware of it at the time, nor had I ever heard of the Jewish anti-Nazi boycott before, but it only took a little investigation online to see there is a huge difference between how the boycott is presented by mainstream historians and by Nazi apologists.
“I make no apologies calling out historical revisionism when I see it. This is a prime example that … jewish “propagandists” love putting out.”
This dog whistle refers to the neo-Nazi argument that Jewish propagandists have revised the historical record to erase or downplay the anti-Nazi boycott to make the Jews look more like innocent victims instead of aggressors against Germany who got what was coming to them.
Resw’s insistence here and in following comments that LoM was engaging in deliberate historical revisionism instead of a minor mistake is difficult to understand otherwise. Why should it matter that much if LoM forgot (or like me, didn’t know about) the rather ineffectual Jewish boycott in the context of the earlier discussion going on in this thread? It only really matters if one is trying to push blame for the Holocaust onto the Jews themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LoM’s original comment about the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was in response to a direct question from Abagond about Woolsworth. There was no reason for LoM to mention the prior boycott by international Jews in order to answer Abagond’s question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
“the rather ineffectual Jewish boycott ”
And that according to whom? You? And what authority are you?
“t only really matters if one is trying to push blame for the Holocaust onto the Jews themselves”
And again, that’s only based on your limited opinion. As I said, will call out historical revisionism as I see it. You don’t like it? Don’t care.
LikeLike
@ Resw
You first, since you’re the one who brought the boycott up in the first place — cite your sources that claim it was effectual.
And exactly how does this consititute historical revisionism? What agenda do you believe LoM was trying to promote by not mentioning the boycott in his answer to Abagond’s question about Woolsworth?
Because as you and I both know, the term “historical revisionism” refers to taking a specific stance on the interpretation of a period of history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
Another dog whistle: Resw refused to answer my question about whether Nazi violence against Jewish businesses in Germany came before the anti-Nazi international boycott.
When LoM brought it up: “Solitaire has got the sequence of events right on the nose.” Resw only replied, “Who said he didn’t?” Which is not the same as agreeing that I did, just denying ever having said I didn’t.
When I pressed Resw to give me a direct yes-or-no answer as to what came first, the Jewish boycott or Nazi anti-semitic violence, he called the question “asinine” and left the thread. This is the behavior of someone who knows an honest direct answer will, at the very least, put them in a bad light.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
I asked you “according to whom? You? And what authority are you?” and your response was “you first”. How does that make any sense to you?
“cite your sources that claim it was effectual.”
You’re the only one that made a claim about something being “ineffectual”, but nice deflection.
And as you know, I won’t be answering your asinine questions. I’m not here to play these silly games with you. Get a man.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“Another dog whistle: Resw refused to answer my question about ”
Not taking your bait is not a “dog whistle”.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Note also there is absolutely no attempt to say: “No, of course that’s not how I meant it, of course the Jews didn’t attack Germany and thereby bring down the Holocaust on themselves.”
You’d think that would be the first thing someone who wasn’t an anti-semitic Nazi apologist would rush to clarify.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Instead, Resw wants to argue about my statement that the anti-Nazi boycott was ineffectual. Why is that important? Well, if the boycott was ineffectual, that would work against the Nazi apologists’ historical interpretation of the Jewish boycott as a vicious blow against Germany which left Germany no choice but to act against the Jews in self-defense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
Based on the information you presented you only support what I said even more. YOU concluded what he meant. YOU deduced an ulterior motive behind the meaning. Same thing you did which lead me to respond rudely about the pettiness. You thought I meant more than what I did. You look for anything Res does and says and run with it.
Jeff jumped in on a false narrative and here you are concluding the reason for him replying when it is clear as day he replayed based on what he saw as a slip up.
“but it only took a little investigation online to see there is a huge difference between how the boycott is presented by mainstream historians and by Nazi apologists.”—-With online material people will find whatever they can to illustrate their point. If you are basing what he believes on a picture and added information, then you really need to reevaluate your obsession with Res.
“Why should it matter that much if LoM forgot (or like me, didn’t know about) the rather ineffectual Jewish boycott in the context of the earlier discussion going on in this thread? It only really matters if one is trying to push blame for the Holocaust onto the Jews themselves.”—Umm… No. It can matter for a number of reasons. One is to pick on LOM and another is to point out the fact that he claims to be such a history buff but leaves out information that does not suite his narrative. Prime example is when we speak on the Irish he will leave out whole blocks of information because he wants to view the Irish as equal victims to African American slaves. He did it with the French as well in which Gro Jo took him to task on leaving out the information. He does it ALL the time. If it was not Res then it would have been gro jo or someone else, but by all means it does not reveal anything about being anti-Jewish. Just anti-lies.
” Resw refused to answer my question about whether Nazi violence against Jewish businesses in Germany came before the anti-Nazi international boycott.”—He owes you a response why? How does him refusing to answer you equal Jewish dog whistle? I take issue with you as a white woman feeling like a poc owes you something. To be honest I would not answer you either if I had to deal with you trying to assume about me and then calling me names and then acting like I have to treat you with respect.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“but it is disingenuous at best to claim that that changes the central narrative of the history of Nazi Germany with respect to anti-Semitism.”—No one said it does change the central narrative. But by all means quote where it did? Do you not see how you jumped to a conclusion based on the presentation of that information?
“I am just trying to make sure that history is correctly represented.”—Yet by habit you don’t. I can think of quite a few threads where you leave out information. I don’t expect you to know it all, but to acknowledge when you do leave it out instead of screaming Anti- whatever. Everything deserves to be remember but accurately. People praise the actions of Rosa Parks, but I most certainly present Claudette Colvin who did it first.
“I think it is disingenuous on your part to take Solitaire’s very proper question about the why the anti-Nazi boycott might have happened, and turn it into “a white woman feeling like a poc owes you something.” That’s not what this is about at all, and you know it.”—You can think whatever you want to, but that don’t mean you wont be wrong. It isn’t even about this question. She has done this before with res and kepting hounding him as if he owed her a response. So yeah I take issue with a white woman feeling as if a POC owes her a response.
LikeLike
LoM said:-
“I am not Jewish, nor particularly enamored of Zionism or Israel, so I don’t have a really personal connection to the Holocaust of the sort that makes me speak with passion about what the Irish have been through”.
Yet you raised the fact that your mum had a Jewish stepfather to make a point about the fact that you would have made your stance clear!!!!
LikeLike
LoM
I can’t work out whether you are wilfully or blithely narcissistic! You did use it with an agenda, an agenda to show your allegiance is I would think. Whatever it is it appears to be another shameless way to bring the conversation back to you and before we know it again, we will have you harping on about your favourite kind of history again (sssh, no one say this ‘I’ word
‘I don’t speak a word of German, but maybe I would have been picked up by the Gestapo for speaking a subversive (French) language. Or espousing left-wing viewpoints. Or having ties to Catholicism, not exactly the Nazis’ best friend. Or for my mom having a Jewish stepfather. So much for blending in with the majority ‘
LikeLike
No I didn’t. I said one thing happened before the other, which is a fact. I didn’t offer my opinion about anything. It’s all in your imagination.
Is it?
Let’s check the facts. First, LoM said:
In 1933, when the Nazis first came to power, they began an economic war with the Jews, staging boycotts of Jewish businesses across Germany.
That was a fact. Then, resw said:
Of course you have it backwards. In 1933 when Nazis first came to power, Jews began an economic war with Germany first, staging boycotts of German products across the world.
Just so you know the facts, i.e. the proper sequence of events.
Why is it backwards? All LoM said was that the nazis staged a boycott, which is true.
Still, it appears resw does have a certain opinion on this issue. After all why else should resw suggest that LoM’s statement is flawed (“he has it backwards”) and claiming he “corrected him,” and asking him to “accept he is wrong” for stating some plain facts?
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“Why is it backwards? All LoM said was that the nazis staged a boycott, which is true.”—Because LOM said it began with the Nazi’s staging the economic war. Which even he admits was wrong and poor wording.
LikeLike
Yes the nazis began with “staging boycotts of Jewish businesses across Germany.
So far, it were American jews that started an economic boycott against Germany.
However, the nazis began with a boycott against the German Jews – who condemned the American boycott themselves.
Therefore, LoM’s point still stands.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
Regardless of it being American Jews, who did influence Jews in Germany, the boycott did take place prior to the Nazi’s doing the boycott.
So Res point still stands as well. The issue when both are right, why is there still just a condemnation of one?
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“I take issue with you as a white woman feeling like a poc owes you something.”
Resw doesn’t owe me anything. Pointing out that Resw is (in my opinion) dodging a question doesn’t equate to Resw owes me an answer.
I don’t know whether Resw is a POC or not. I know you believe so. I have no clue. But Resw has expressed to me a number of times his/her opinion that his/her race shouldn’t matter.
Therefore I have been treating Resw exactly as I would anyone else online whose race I don’t know.
I don’t have an obsession with Resw. I left Resw alone for a long time after our interaction about the history of the term Moor. I only have paid Resw any attention recently because of some statements that I found disturbing.
You and I disagree in our interpretation of those specific things that Resw has said.
I agree with you on the most part about LoM. I have said before that he has major issues, and I still believe that to be true.
But I’m not convinced that he had any ulterior motive when he didn’t mention the anti-Nazi boycott. He wasn’t laying out a timeline of the events leading to the Holocaust; he was answering a specific question about one corporation.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“Resw doesn’t owe me anything. Pointing out that Resw is (in my opinion) dodging a question doesn’t equate to Resw owes me an answer.”—You ask him to answer you over and over again as if you feel he owes you one. When he does not answer you, then you proceed to throw out the ad hominems and he throws them right back and vise versa. It seems like this endless….”Answer Me.”
“I don’t have an obsession with Resw. I left Resw alone for a long time after our interaction about the history of the term Moor. I only have paid Resw any attention recently because of some statements that I found disturbing.”—Not sure if you notice, but a lot of what you found disturbing is so minuscule it is ridiculous. One of those disturbing comments being you trying to figure out if he is american or not. Sure you just threw it out there, but for what purpose?
“I’m not convinced that he had any ulterior motive when he didn’t mention the anti-Nazi boycott.”—By all means feel free, but much of what he does is engage in a nativity of the matter. Mainly because he believes his ideas to be true.
LikeLike
* engage in being naive of the matter.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933
LikeLike
@ Sharina
And you’ve said over and over again that LoM should admit he left out the fact that the anti-Nazi boycott came first — which he has done more than once already.
So why is it not equally important that Resw admit that he also left out a historical fact: the anti-Jewish actions by the Nazis that led to the international boycott?
Are they not both guilty of distorting the historical record through omission?
“You ask him to answer you over and over again as if you feel he owes you one.”
I’ve done the exact same thing to LoM on more than one thread and you never objected.
“One of those disturbing comments being you trying to figure out if he is american or not. Sure you just threw it out there, but for what purpose?”
I don’t find it disturbing if Resw is an American or isn’t. That’s not one of the disturbing comments I was referring to. The purpose of throwing it out there was because Gro Jo had asked a question and I’d recently seen information that indicated the answer. That’s all.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“And you’ve said over and over again that LoM should admit he left out the fact that the anti-Nazi boycott came first”—I did, but I also wasn’t expecting him to. I know how he is. I don’t expect anything from him. On the other hand you expect and almost demand res answer you.
“So why is it not equally important that Resw admit that he also left out a historical fact: the anti-Jewish actions by the Nazis that led to the international boycott?”—For starters LOM brought it up and he could have admitted it or not, but Res simply retorted showing he was not fully accurate. Just because you later down the line ask him to admit does not mean he has to. Frankly I did not care if he did or not because I know he regularly plays this revisionist history crap. However, the issue is having the roles reversed. Not what was left out.
“I’ve done the exact same thing to LoM on more than one thread and you never objected.”—Possibly because I never paid enough attention to those exchanges. Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of post I gloss over and not fully read.
“The purpose of throwing it out there was because Gro Jo had asked a question and I’d recently seen information that indicated the answer. That’s all.”—Which serves no purpose at all. You are overly invested in something minor about Res and for what? If you find out his race, nationality, background, what in the end would it serve? How will it change his argument? You say these things mean nothing, but are on the prowl for it.
LikeLike
From my perspective, the situations with Germans and Jews requires context. Just as this post illustrate that it was not as simple as Hitler taking over. There was a process in place the put him in that position. Taking a look at the context shows a depth of the mindset of the people that put him there and not some one dimensional story book, that paints a lone boogeyman. It is not right or acceptable to ignore average citizens actions in this.
LikeLike
LoM
You have no idea what my full heritage is so nice try with your ridiculous and nonsensical attempt to paint me who happens to be UK born as wanting to suppress nationalism. But I bet it felt good for you to say the ‘I’ word though.
LikeLike
LoM
I am mocking your incessant example of derailing threads, nothing else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haven’t read this website for awhile but I see that Abagond is still writing insightful, detailed, educational posts. Keep up the great work!! I didn’t know all of this about Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. It’s not going to happen here because POC vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
“However, the issue is having the roles reversed. Not what was left out.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not following this. Rather than my taking a guess at what you meant and getting it wrong, I would appreciate it if you could explain in more detail.
“You are overly invested in something minor about Res and for what? If you find out his race, nationality, background, what in the end would it serve? How will it change his argument? You say these things mean nothing, but are on the prowl for it.”
I never tried to find out those things in my first debate with Resw several months ago. More recently I had a question about Resw’s race on the alt-right thread because it would have in fact changed how I felt about Resw’s use of a certain word. That’s the only reason it ever mattered to me.
Resw also made a huge deal about age on that thread, but it was mostly his/her imagination. I had responded to Mary Burrell about her comment on “the younger generation” and Resw attacked me because s/he assumed I was talking about his/her age. I told Resw my vague estimate of his/her age simply to assure him/her that I had never thought of him/her as being a very young person, and s/he blew that all out of proportion.
Since that thread I haven’t given a cr@p what Resw is. I don’t care if someone wants to remain ambiguous to protect their identity. What does bother me is Resw seems to use that ambiguity in trollish ways: to attack, to deflect criticism, to hide. (For example, calling Afrofem a white supremacist on the UN thread. Calling other people sexist for speculating about his/her gender but then telling me above to “get a man.”) You probably won’t agree with me on that assessment. I’m simply stating it to make my thoughts clearer, not attempting to sway your opinion.
You can discount everything else I presented upthread as evidence if you want. But I will stress this again: When in the context of a discussion about Nazi Germany and Hitler, someone starts talking about Jewish propagandists engaged in historical revisionism, that sends up major red flags for me. That’s the rhetoric used by anti-semites, Hitler apologists, Holocaust deniers, and neo-Nazis.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“So why is it not equally important that Resw admit that he also left out a historical”—You stated this correct? The issue isn’t about leaving something out. The issue is about incorrect sequence of events. So really you want Res to do something that no one is even asking LOM to do.
“Since that thread I haven’t given a cr@p what Resw is.”—Yet you pull out a source on another thread pointing to his nationality? For what if you don’t care?
“Calling other people sexist for speculating about his/her gender but then telling me above to “get a man.””—A) Gro jo is sexist. B) if you read the context of the thread he was not called sexist for speculating his sex. He was called that because gro jo made sexist remarks. Indicating a submissive view of Res.
“That’s the rhetoric used by anti-semites, Hitler apologists, Holocaust deniers, and neo-Nazis.”–Yet I agreed with Res presentation of that information because it should not be glossed over no matter who the discussion is about. So I must be Hitler apologist etc. too.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Thank you for sharing your views. I will take them under consideration.
LikeLike
@ sharinalr
Regardless of it being American Jews, who did influence Jews in Germany, the boycott did take place prior to the Nazi’s doing the boycott.
So Res point still stands as well. The issue when both are right, why is there still just a condemnation of one?
Thanks. The problem here is that resw wrote that he was right, and that LoM had to “accept he was wrong.”
However, as you rightfully say, both viewpoints stand: the Nazis began a boycott against German Jews (LoM’s point), while American Jews began a boycott against Nazis before that (resw’s point).
Thus, nobody has to accept he is wrong.
= = = = = = = =
Al right: another point: for those interested I will supply a link to nazi publicationts prior 1933, so that people can see that the anti-nazi boycott was not without reason: http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/pre1933.htm
LikeLike
LoM
I am not sure why my omitting the I’ word was relating it to being scary…
Even in your restraint you are trying to project! Btw, I am not getting at you per se. Issues that affect poc affect me indirectly and it pi**es me off to constantly see you add some connection to your favourite topic however real or tenuous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jeff Elberfeld
“The problem here is that resw wrote that he was right, and that LoM had to “accept he was wrong.”—That is not really the problem, because Res never said he was wrong altogether. That is what people assumed (including you). Here is a quote from Res:
“Just so you know the facts, i.e. the proper sequence of events.”
Here is Res making it clear that it was the sequence of events LOM was inaccurate about. Not the statement itself. He was in fact wrong about the sequence of events and he has acknowledged that to an extent.
The real problem here is other people selectively reading what Res said because they believe him bring it up period equates to be a Nazi apologist.
LikeLike
@ resw
Comment deleted for moderated language.
LikeLike
@Sharinalr
That is not really the problem, because Res never said he was wrong altogether. That is what people assumed (including you).
Then why did resw say this?
“All I did was correct you. Accept that you were wrong and move on.”
Here is a quote from Res:
“Just so you know the facts, i.e. the proper sequence of events.”
Here is Res making it clear that it was the sequence of events LOM was inaccurate about. Not the statement itself. He was in fact wrong about the sequence of events and he has acknowledged that to an extent.
So LoM was “inaccurate,” but not “wrong”? How peculiar.
By the way, LoM only mentioned one event: the boycott by nazis. I do not understand how someone can have the sequence wrong in a series of one item. Just try to get the number 4 in the right sequence, and you see what I mean.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“Then why did resw say this?”—I answered your question clearly in the last comment. Using Res very words at that. He said that because LOM was wrong about the sequence.
“So LoM was “inaccurate,” but not “wrong”? How peculiar.”—Not sure what you mean, because inaccurate and wrong are actually synonyms of each other. Irregardless his sequence was not correct.
This is what Abagond said that prompted a response from LOM:
You can have a sequence wrong if you claim it was the beginning of something when it really wasn’t. If I said the beginning number if 2, then I would be wrong because it is 1. Sure someone will later decided it is 0.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
“By the way, LoM only mentioned one event: the boycott by nazis. I do not understand how someone can have the sequence wrong in a series of one item.”
Exactly. Lord of Mirkwood has been accused of getting the sequence backwards and reversing the events. To do that, he would have had to say, “The Nazis boycotted Jewish businesses in Germany, and then the international Jewish community boycotted Germany.” But he didn’t say that.
The sequence of events is:
A. The Nazis came to power and started discriminating aginst the Jews and vandalizing Jewish businesses.
B. The international Jewish community, especially in the USA and Britain, boycotted Nazi Germany.
C. The Nazis boycotted the businesses of German Jews.
And the sequence of events on this thread:
Lord of Mirkwood: “C.”
Resw: “You got it backwards. B happened first.”
Lord of Mirkwood: “That’s true. However, A happened before that and led to B.”
Resw: Accept that you were wrong about B and move on.
————————————————-
When discussing an historical event, how far back is it necessary to go?
If someone starts to talk about the USA dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, do they have to also talk about Pearl Harbor? If so, do they need to go even farther back and talk about Western interference in Japan, the American colonialization of Hawaii, etc? Such a discussion of course could be quite enlightening, but what if that person had just wanted to focus on particulars about the effects of the atomic bombs?
If someone wants to discuss the massacre at Wounded Knee, do they need to also acknowledge the extermination of Custer’s troops at the Battle of Little Big Horn?
What if someone mentions the terrible events at Wounded Knee and someone else says: “You got it backwards, Custer’s Last Stand happened first?”
How far do we take this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
“How far do we take this?”—As far back as necessary to reveal full context. This is how revisionist history takes place now. People focus or mention that one event and see that as enough. Excluding other factors because they don’t know.
Prime example is African slavery and the idea of African’s sold their own. No one mentions that different ethnicity sold other ethnicity and it is often construed that all Africans are the same. Another aspect of this is how people believe the indentured servitude and slavery are the same. No one mentions that they are not. Why? because no context is mentioned or even used.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“Note also there is absolutely no attempt to say: “No, of course that’s not how I meant it, of course the Jews didn’t attack Germany and thereby bring down the Holocaust on themselves.””
No I won’t be apologising for something I never said. Whatever you have imagined is something you should discuss with a shrink. Lord of Mirkwood was wrong, I corrected him, he lied, and you stuck your nose in as you always do with false accusations.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
“So really you want Res to do something that no one is even asking LOM to do.”
That’s how racists behave. Nothing but double standards for their white brethren.
“One of those disturbing comments being you trying to figure out if he is american or not. ”
You are right, Solitaire (and gro jo too) is a bit obsessed with me and my identity. So much so that Solitaire went through the hassle of finding a comment I posted in 2013, and now Solitaire and gro jo derail every thread I comment on to talk about my identity, which they still know nothing about.
LikeLike
@ resw
“now Solitaire and gro jo derail every thread I comment on to talk about my identity”
That’s a lie. There are plenty of threads you’ve commented on recently where I haven’t commented at all, much less about you. You’ve exaggerated 3 or 4 threads to “every.”
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“As far back as necessary to reveal full context.”
All right, I can accept that premise. Then I will hold LoM and Resw to the same standard and say neither of them has gone back anywhere far enough. They are both focusing on two boycotts in the early 1930s and ignoring hundreds of years of anti-semitism in Germany.
As I said upthread, for full context we would need to take this topic back at the very least to the late 1000s when the German armies of the First Crusade, as they left for Jerusalem, massacred villages of German Jews. We would need to discuss the medieval pogroms, the medieval ghettoes, the medevial restrictions on German Jews, the deep anti-semitism of the Catholic Church (including but not limited to the Inquisition), the deep anti-semitism of Martin Luther and the various branches of German Protestantism. We need to talk about the efforts to improve German Jewish life in the 1700s and 1800s, as well as the resultant backlashes.
We might, though, need to go even further back and discuss the anti-semitism of the Roman Empire and how that spread to the German tribes of Western Europe.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Good. it should be an interesting read to see how the Germans became enemies with the Jews to being with.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Well, that’s a rough outline right there. If you want to go back to the very beginning, it’s tied to the problems between the Jews and their Roman conquerers as well as the split in the early Christian church between those who continued to adhere to Jewish religious law versus those who didn’t.
On another note, I went back just now and read through the earliest posts in this thread. You may be right that Resw was too quickly assumed to be veering into anti-semitic territory. I still say there are red flags, but on the other hand LoM got overly bombastic in his earliest accusations.
I would like to ask you, in fairness, to do the same thing. You said that I kept badgering Resw over and over to answer my question. What I saw just now was 1) my original question to Resw re the order of events 2) my asking Resw again in the context of getting back on topic. Resw said my question was asinine and I asked how so, which isn’t quite the same thing as repeating the question, but all the same if you want we’ll count that as 3.
Unless I missed something, that’s it. Every other mention of that question was in the discussion between you and me.
I asked Resw the question twice and I asked him why he found the question too asinine to answer once.
Last winter I asked LoM the same question multiple times across 2 or 3 different threads until he complained to Abagond that I was stalking him. Never did answer it, either.
LikeLike
This is a pretty good overview covering Western Europe:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism
LikeLike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
“The events of 1096 in the Rhineland ‘…are often presented as the first instance of an antisemitism … whose climax was the Holocaust.'”
LikeLike
This article focuses more on attitudes and events in 19th century Germany beginning about 50 years before Hitler’s rise to power:
http://web.mnstate.edu/shoptaug/AntiFrames.htm
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“You’ve exaggerated 3 or 4 threads to “every.””
Yes, pedant, it was an exaggeration, so feel free to replace “every” with “most”. “3 or 4 threads” out of 5 or 6 is far too much. It’s creepy. A good sign it’s time for you and gro jo to get laid and stop focusing on me.
“They are both focusing on two boycotts in the early 1930s and ignoring hundreds of years of anti-semitism in Germany.”
No, I simply corrected an incorrect statement your Lord of Mirkwood made. Nothing else. So there was absolutely no need for me to acknowledge any time period prior to, and I quote, “IN 1933, WHEN the Nazis FIRST came to power”. That’s the only time period your Lord of Mirkwood mentioned, and that I referenced.
Do you finally understand are are you still feigning ignorance?
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
“You may be right that Resw was too quickly assumed to be veering into anti-semitic territory. ”
Well you’d think that’d warrant an apology, at least from a person with some sense of decency. But I forgot, racists don’t apologise.
LikeLike
@ resw
Do you not understand the subjunctive tense? I said “may be,” not “are.” The jury’s still out on your anti-semitism.
LikeLike
@ resw
You said: So there was absolutely no need for me to acknowledge any time period prior to, and I quote, “IN 1933, WHEN the Nazis FIRST came to power”.
Sharina said: “How far do we take this?”—As far back as necessary to reveal full context.
We’re taking it all the way back whether you’re happy about it or not. Like you, I call out historical revisionism wherever I see it.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“I said “may,” not “was.” ”
I know, as I said, racists like you don’t apologise.
“The jury’s still out on your anti-semitism.”
You’re neither jury nor judge, and you’ve completely failed to present any evidence to support your idiotic claim.
“We’re taking it all the way back whether you’re happy about it or not.”
And that’s not relevant to anything that I said. My comment correcting an incorrect statement your Lord of Mirkwood made was in regard to a specific period of time, which again was “IN 1933, WHEN the Nazis FIRST came to power” not anything else. Sorry your desperate attempts have failed.
LikeLike
@ resw
“you’ve completely failed to present any evidence to support your idiotic claim”
That’s how dog whistles work.
1) They are meant to only be heard by insiders who are in the know.
2) Dog whistles are designed so that, when they are heard by others, it is difficult for them to describe or prove what they heard.
3) They are designed to be easily explained away as “just your imagination.”
My spidey senses went all a-tingle. Perhaps it was a false alarm, but so far I’ve not seen anything to suggest that. My mind’s not made up. If that bothers you, so be it.
LikeLike
@ resw
Comment in mod.
It’s interesting how many of my replies have gotten thrown to moderation only because I quoted you and forgot to check the quote for moderated words.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
LOL. What a joke you are. But at least you finally admitted you have no evidence to prove your false claims. We all know racists like you and Lord of Mirkwood don’t like history as it really happened, but it doesn’t change the sequence of events.
“My mind’s not made up. If that bothers you, so be it.”
It doesn’t. Simple minds will be simple minds. Plus I don’t expect you racists to be fair.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
Please leave me out of that one. I don’t care if Resw calls me racist.
LikeLike
@ LoM
“I have to say that this thread makes my head spin. I don’t even know exactly what point we’re arguing anymore”
That ties in with what Afrofem was saying over on the UN reparations thread. Abagond wrote this post as a comparison of Hitler and Trump. Resw has effectively moved all discussion off of Trump for days now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOM
If you read any of Abagond’s post then you know you are the typical colorblind racist.
LikeLike
@ Resw
I’m going to work through the sequence of events and who-said-what more slowly so perhaps you’ll get it this time.
The sequence of events is:
A. The Nazis came to power and started discriminating aginst the Jews and vandalizing Jewish businesses.
B. The international Jewish community, especially in the USA and Britain, boycotted Nazi Germany.
C. The Nazis boycotted the businesses of German Jews.
Lord of Mirkwood never said “First C, then B.”
He said: “C.”
You told LoM: “You got it backwards. B came before C.”
LoM said: “Yes, B came before C. And A came before B.”
I haven’t seen a single instance on this thread where LoM denied that B came before C or where he claimed C came before B. He never reversed anything. He failed to mention B and you felt he should have.
But you failed to mention A, so you also left out something important in the sequence. LoM, Jeff Elberfeld, and I all said to you: “A came first, then B, then C.” We all acknowledged that yes, B did come before C as you had pointed out. But you never once acknowledged that A came before B, and you have engaged in all sorts of sophistry to avoid having to discuss whether A did in fact precede B.
This is one of the red flags I thought I saw re anti-semitism, but it’s also possible that you’re simply not big enough to admit to a mistake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
Yet you are chastising res, but made post full of excuses for LOM.
He does not have to acknowledge it. Doing so won’t change that he was right. How hard is it for you to either leave him alone or admit you thought wrong?
LikeLike
Also from everything I read A did not come first. B did. Then your c. Followed by A. My source is above as I posted it prior.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“I don’t even know exactly what point we’re arguing anymore”
I’d bet because you deflected from the fact that you were wrong about a sequence of events.
@Solitaire
“I’m going to work through the sequence of events and who-said-what more slowly so perhaps you’ll get it this time.”
We already know what happened. You’re the only one still wondering.
@sharinalr
“How hard is it for you to either leave him alone or admit you thought wrong?”
Racists don’t do that. I’d hope now, just like it has become evident on the UN Reparations thread, exactly what these white supremacists are doing. They deflect each and every time you tell them about the part of history they don’t like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw
I have no real issue with Solitaire, but I do find it truly disturbing that she keeps wanting you to agree LOM was right. All of this based on her “feeling”. This is the exact same psycho crap kiwi would do. Take something, be wrong about it, and harass you from thread to thread until you admit to his way. Not because anything you said was, but because he “believed” you were.
Another issue is revisionist history, being acceptable. Jewish did not just sit and take the abuse. They did make effort to fight back. So what.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“Why did the anti-Nazi boycott occur?”—You tell use oh great revisionist.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
There’s been more than one source linked to here, including the Wiki article about the boycott, that said A did happen before B. The types of things described in A got much worse after C (e.g., Kristallnacht), but they were already happening before B.
The reason I think it is important is historical context. I don’t believe B can be correctly understood without A.
However, I can let the matter drop.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
LOL. Well we already know what your legacy on this entire blog is: deflect from white people’s evil deeds to blacks, lie to garner as much sympathy as you can from blacks for things whites did to whites, and then feign ignorance (or plead insanity) when people call you out on it.
Oh and I forgot one: shamelessly plug your blog posts that no one but racists like Will Quigg and Solitaire read.
And I will not be answering any questions that are premised upon the false accusations you made because you were upset that I corrected you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sharina
I’m sorry, I just saw this and I do want to respond:
“Jewish did not just sit and take the abuse. They did make effort to fight back. So what.”
That is not and has never been my issue.
My issue is: If A is left out, it can sound like the Jews attacked the Germans first for no cause.
If we leave out A and start with B, we leave out the abuse the Jews were fighting back against.
This has been my point all along: that the Jews were fighting back against abuse.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I have a source that I posted upthread. In the source it indicates that they boycott was the result of Hitler coming to power and the fear of increased antisemitism. This is an indication that whatever “vandalism” (which the source does not indicate that their was)that was occurring was not even a big deal to them. However, Hitlers rise to power was enough to act.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
So basically what I get is you wanted to highlight how the Jews were abused “first” at the expense of ignoring that they were the first to boycott. That is how revisionist history works.
Example: Blacks came over here as slaves. People conclude all blacks were slaves. Ignore the blacks that came over here free among other dynamics that came into play.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Where have I ever ignored the fact that the Jews were the first to boycott?
About the vandalism, if Jewish business are being singled out for that but Christian businesses are being left alone, that is discrimination.
You could interpret what the German Jews said to mean they didn’t think the vandalism was a big deal. Others have interpreted it to mean they were trying to keep their heads down and not make waves and hope the anti-Jewish sentiment died down. There are survivors who said so after the Holocaust.
LikeLike
“In late January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the German Reich. Immediately, members of Hitler’s Nazi Party began a campaign of violence against German Jews, socialists, communists and other Nazi opponents. Germany’s Jewish Central Association (Verein) issued a statement asserting its belief that “the responsible government authorities are unaware of the threatening situation” and that the Verein had thus “dutifully apprised [the Hitler administration] thereof.” The Verein’s statement concluded, “We do not believe our German-fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews.” …
The Central Verein’s appeals did nothing to stop the terror against Jewish businesses. Stink bombs, picketing and shopper harassment by Nazi Party thugs continued for several days in Magdeburg, Essen, Kassel and Berlin. Herman Goering announced, “I shall employ the police, and without mercy, wherever German people are hurt, but I refuse to turn the police into a guard for Jewish stores.”
(Italics mine)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/The_Anti-Nazi_Boycott.html
LikeLike
it means don’t buy a Ford.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Solitaire
You did not bring it up, which indicates you chose to ignore it. When Res did bring it up, you chose to chastise him for it. Going so far as calling him anti-Semitic.
“About the vandalism, if Jewish business are being singled out for that but Christian businesses are being left alone, that is discrimination.”–Sure it is.
That’s the soldier interpretation, however, they went through years of discrimination and it was not until Hitler took power that they responded.
Quotes per my source above:
The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933 was a boycott of German products by foreign critics of the Nazi Party in response to antisemitism in Nazi Germany following the rise of Adolf Hitler, commencing with his appointment as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Those in the United Kingdom, United States and other places worldwide who opposed Hitler’s policies, developed the boycott and its accompanying protests to encourage Nazi Germany to end the regime’s anti-Jewish attitude.
Following Adolf Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor in January 1933, critics responded with worldwide calls for protest and boycotting; for example, an editorial in The Harvard Crimson in 1933 states that “The role of the neutral nation will be, as always, a difficult one. But those nations sincerely desirous of European peace still have an opportunity to preserve it. An economic boycott of Germany to force its government to terms would so multiply its target as to make a shot impractical.”
As you can see as soon as he was appointed the call for boycotts was put out worldwide, because they opposed his policies.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
You just wrote a post describing you. So pot why do you call the kettle black?
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“You did not bring it up, which indicates you chose to ignore it.”
My very first post on this thread:
“How interesting. I never knew about this [anti-Nazi boycott].”
How can you bring up something you don’t know???
Not only did you ascribe a false motive for my not bringing up the anti-Nazi boycott, you ignored the fact that the first post I made here was about the anti-Nazi boycott.
“they went through years of discrimination and it was not until Hitler took power that they responded.”
That’s not true at all. Did you read any of the links I posted yesterday on the history before Hitler?
“As you can see as soon as he was appointed the call for boycotts was put out worldwide, because they opposed his policies.”
You’re quoting from a brief Wiki summary that gives no dates. Check the footnotes in your source: that Harvard Crimson editorial is from October 24, 1933 — nine months after Hitler was appointed.
“When word of the assaults reached America, representatives of the American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Congress met in New York. The conferees established a joint committee to monitor the situation but agreed that organized public protests in America would further undermine the already precarious position of German Jewry. Less than a month later, however, the American Jewish Congress changed its mind and called on its partners to help organize an American protest campaign. On March 12, 1933, the AJCongress resolved to hold a mass protest rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City. A week later, the organization convened an emergency conference of Jewish organizations that 1,500 individuals attended.
“At the emergency meeting, the AJCongress announced its intention to hold a Madison Square Garden rally on March 27th. J. George Fredman, Commander-in-Chief of the Jewish War Veterans, called for an American boycott of German imports. After Fredman spoke, Joseph Proskauer and Judge Irving Lehman of the American Jewish Committee publicly counseled restraint. Lehman feared that any rally in America “may add to the terrible dangers of the Jews in Germany.” Lehman pleaded, “I implore you in the name of humanity, don’t let anger pass a resolution which will kill Jews in Germany.”
(italics mine)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/The_Anti-Nazi_Boycott.html
LikeLike
@ Sharina
“When Res did bring it up, you chose to chastise him for it. Going so far as calling him anti-Semitic.”
No, I chastised Resw for not providing the necessary historical context when Resw brought it up.
That’s what I was doing in my very first post, the second one as well: providing the context. Go back and look at my first two posts and you will see that I did so without even mentioning Resw. That was deliberate on my part.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“Because according to you, that would be the only reason why I would criticize them, right?”
No, it’s according to you and only you. Clearly you did not read what I actually said or are once again feigning ignorance.
“Since you’re in a position to answer my question, which would give you a very simple opportunity to prove that you do not blame the Holocaust on the Jews”
I don’t know who you think you are to expect me to have to prove something that you have imagined in your racist mind. Lay off the hard drugs.
“By the way, who the hell is Will Quigg”
Since you apparently can’t use a search engine, he’s a KKK Grand Dragon who supports the same racist Presidential candidate as you.
LikeLike
@Solitaire @LoM
Consider adding these tools to your collection:
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
LikeLike
@Solitaire
” I chastised Resw for not providing the necessary historical context when Resw brought it up.”–Yet you did not chastise LOM for doing the exact same thing?
“That’s what I was doing in my very first post, the second one as well: providing the context.”—I did not see it so I stand corrected.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“That’s not true at all. Did you read any of the links I posted yesterday on the history before Hitler?”—Nope. Did you read mine?
“You’re quoting from a brief Wiki summary that gives no dates.”—It does have dates, even in the quote that I gave. I can go to the linked source and list he dates as well if that will clarify the matter, but the source stands all the same.
“hat Harvard Crimson editorial is from October 24, 1933 — nine months after Hitler was appointed.”–People will write articles at any point. Because it was written nine months later does not negate the fact that the events happened in said order. Heck it was only talking about this quote “n editorial in The Harvard Crimson in 1933 states that “The role of the neutral nation will be, as always, a difficult one. But those nations sincerely desirous of European peace still have an opportunity to preserve it. An economic boycott of Germany to force its government to terms would so multiply its target as to make a shot impractical.” Not the whole piece.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“No, I chastised Resw for not providing the necessary historical context when Resw brought it up.”
I don’t have to bring up the “historical context” in order to correct your Lord of Mirkwood on who “began an economic war” “In 1933, when the Nazis first came to power”. Just as he didn’t bring up the “historical context” when he made that incorrect statement. And just like you didn’t bring up the “historical context” when you made a statement about South Africa.
So if you want to hold me to such a standard, the least you could do is not be a hypocrite and hold yourself to the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
“Nope. Did you read mine?”
Yes. And if you will once again refer to my very first post on this thread, you will see I was quoting from the very same Wiki article you are now, which means I read it before you linked to it.
“It does have dates, even in the quote that I gave. I can go to the linked source and list he dates as well if that will clarify the matter, but the source stands all the same.”
The source that I quoted from in my earlier posts today gives this timeline:
– Hitler takes power in late January 1933
– Nazis begin to vandalize and picket Jewish stores directly thereafter
– word of the Nazi vandalism etc. reaches American Jews
– the American Jews call for a boycott in late March 1933
My source says clearly that A came before B.
If you can provide a source that states that anyone called for a boycott before the Nazi vandalism began in late January/early February 1933, I will concede the point.
LikeLike
@ Afrofem
The only thing I care about now is that Resw has succeeded in destroying Sharina’s opinion of me.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I have nothing to do with anyone’s opinion of you. Maybe if you weren’t so dishonest, irrational, unfair and racist, she might think better of you.
And you and your Lord of Mirkwood fit the referenced description of racist derailers to a T.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solitaire
If you are reading the wiki link I posted then it never stated when the boycotts began. Thus you creating the idea that vandalism was the result of the boycott when I quoted three times…same source saying Hiller taking power, then Jewish boycott, then Germans vandalism nd boycott as retaliation.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“Which one of us derailed this thread?”
You.
My first comment to you was 100% on topic. Then you got mad that you got corrected and started making false accusations, which were off topic.
“Where you get that either I or Solitaire is a racist, I have no idea. ”
Directly from the source, i.e., you. Hope that clears it up.
LikeLike
LOM
Res does not have me fooled, just because I can think for myself. You, solitaire, and Jeff all jumped on him based on your “feelings” and “belief”. Which is irratiinal and hyprocital considering that gave you a pass for the same thing. The only difference is your comment indicate a positive note for Jews.
LikeLike
@ resw
I have never lied to Sharina. Not once.
From the very beginning, I have been open, forthright, and honest with her.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
You’re whole argument about what I didn’t say was based on a lie. So I don’t know who you and your Lord of Mirkwood think you’re fooling. Sorry, no one buys your racist BS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharina
That’s why I pointed out that your source is a summary. Historical summaries leave stuff out.
If your source doesn’t give a date for what it says happened, but just uses “immediately,” that’s vague.
You wanted me to nail down my assertion that A came before B. I have provided concrete dates that can be found in primary documents that show A came before B.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me correct to “Your” in case the racist pedant makes another fuss about grammar, as Solitaire has before, which in “Derailing for dummies” is equivalent to ” If their English is bad, jump on that.”
LikeLike
@ Sharina
By the time I showed up on this thread, LoM had already acknowledged his mistake.
LikeLike
Solitaire
Res has not changed my opinion of you. My opinion of you has not changed, but regardless of how I think or see you, I will not sit and watch someone be wrongfully accused of something just because you guys thought more was behind it. Am I always right? Nope. However, in this it is clear his additive caused a sh*the storm because we can’t say anything that might remotely show a different side of Jews. No matter if that something is small and does not negate them as being victims.
Everyone involved in this convo engaged in the derailment. You guys took more put of what he said.
LikeLike
Solitaire
I will read your sources when I am at the computer then.
LikeLike
LOM
You are a racist and when I get time I will direct you to abagond’said post that shows you exactly what kind you are.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
Please give the exact quote where resw said something anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
“What “false accusations”? You made comments strongly implying that either the Holocaust did not happen or the Jews brought it on themselves.”
That false accusation, for starters.
“If you are not a Nazi sympathizer, just come out and say it right now. It’s as easy as “I am in no way an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi.” ”
I guess you didn’t read it the first time I said it, so I repeat: I don’t know who you think you are to expect me to have to prove something that you have imagined in your racist mind. Lay off the hard drugs.
“I will do it for your accusations: I am in no way a white supremacist or a racist.”
Anyone can make a statement, but no one believes you since you’ve proven yourself to be the liar and racist that you are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Resw
“You’re whole argument about what I didn’t say was based on a lie.”
No, it was based on an opinion.
You seem to have difficulty with the difference between a person expressing an opinion and a person lying.
My opinion about what you did and didn’t say may be mistaken. If at some point in time I become convinced that it was, then I will change my opinion.
But I haven’t lied about what my opinion is. I have been honest about what my opinion is.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I will concede to your sequence of events based on your source. Though it should be noted that the vandalism was not just against the Jews. It was against anyone the Nazi’s felt were against them.
LikeLike
@LOM
In this post you are a number 18 and 36.
You are 2 or 3 depending on the subject matter.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
I have found a source that gives more precise dates of some of the events of early 1933.
January 30 — Hitler elected chancellor
March 5 — The Nazis win 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag election
March 8 — Nazis picket and shut down Jewish shops in Essen, Germany, calling out to passer-bys to boycott Jewish stores.
March 9 — Nazis picket and vandalize Jewish shops in Berlin, Kassel, and Magdeburg.
March 19 — Jewish War Veterans becomes the first U.S. group to declare a boycott of Germany products.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4466779?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Sorry, I posted before I saw your comment. I accept the validity of your observation that the Nazis targeted other groups besides the Jews.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Sharina
“In this post you are a number 18 and 36.”
He’s also 34: It’s class not race.
LikeLike
Oh god. That’s the thread where I went ballistic on LoM and had to go away and calm down for a couple months.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“No, it was based on an opinion”
Your opinion is baseless. You had ample opportunity to prove your lies and you couldn’t, yet maintained the lies anyway.
“You seem to have difficulty with the difference between a person expressing an opinion and a person lying.”
No, I only have difficulty tolerating a liar trying to conflate making false, baseless accusations with just sharing an opinion.
And you seem to have difficulty being honest, rational, fair and non-racist.
“My opinion about what you did and didn’t say may be mistaken.”
We can all figure out whether something happened or not, including you. Our comments didn’t just vanish into thin air. So your whole “my opinion ‘may be mistaken'” is yet another example of your sheer dishonesty.
“But I haven’t lied about what my opinion is. I have been honest about what my opinion is.”
LOL. Great job moving goal posts.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
Did I say anyone disputed that or even went after anyone for it? No, I added more information.
Not using the word white does not make you not racist. Anytime the plight of African Americans is mention you run to the default the “I” word is the same. Those groups did not endure the same, yet you feel they did ignoring the very fact that many of them terrorize blacks to the same level or even more so than other groups. You constantly engage in this false dichotomy that the south is racist and so were confederates, while ignoring the fact that the north were just as racist and so were the Yankees. You have this fantasy that the love of blacks is what made the north go to war with the south when reality they did not care about slave either way.
You believe reparations is for blacks and poor whites. Ignoring the privilege that poor whites have that would allow them to move ahead more easily than blacks who were marginalized and actually deserve reparations.
I’m sure others can think of more.
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
Disagreeing with me isn’t what makes you racist. Though the fact that you disagree your racism as such goes to show that you have not even graduated to stage 3.
Your quotes are only going to show what you construed as Nazi sympathy.
LikeLike
dismiss not disagree.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
“Oh, that thread from December! Good times”
Oh, good times all right. You upset me so much I went away and almost didn’t come back.
Sharina is right to point out that on some subjects you are a 3, which I think is the only reason I still hold out any hope for you. But I understand why people like Fan are thoroughly sick of you. I don’t think you are a 1, but I think in your head that’s who racists are, the 1s and them alone.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
“Those are all points we disagree on, which is fine and normal. But they’re not evidence of a moral failing on my part.”
Industrial. Strength. Blinders.
The sheer number of defense mechanisms you have up to maintain the fantasy that you are completely free of any racism is staggering. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anything quite like it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sharina
I admire your perseverance. It is tiring for someone who continues with something even though they are being told on all levels that they need to look in to themselves more.
Although I only dip in and out of here, whenever I see LoM comments I believe he has learned nothing. Not only is it shocking for someone so politically aware to be so blinkered, it is disappointing that there is resistance to personal growth. He appears to be reasonably intelligent so the wilful ignorance kind of feels like a slap in the face to those that have tried to guide him. It says to me, ‘you can talk all you want but I don’t really need to listen’. His agenda first and foremost is to push the ‘I’ agenda. In context there is nothing wrong with that…. It’s just that frequently the perceived context is so tenuous it doesn’t really exist!
LikeLike
@Lord of Mirkwood
Of course abagond never asked you for quotes you “construed as showing sympathy for the Nazis”.
As you know, the question was “Please give the exact quote where resw said something anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi.”
But what else can we expect from a racist, anti-black liar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Omnipresent
I have been doing my best not to say anything to him. Not just because of the “I” word but also because he lies. The main reason I spoke up here was because he has started to use other commenters to hide his deceit behind. He admitted he was wrong, but then has slowly been backpeddling to hide behind arguments that other commenters supply him.
LikeLike
true story? i lost them in storage in california but i stole a couple post cards from my dad, his family was involved in ‘democratic socialism’ so to speak in NYC back in the 1920’ish
LikeLike
the one you opened up and it just had some giant red swastika on it, it was army color/leaf green thick paper, pictures of some people on a horse drawn ‘touring cart’ with writing on the side, the other picture was a group photo on the sidewalk
LikeLike
@ Omnipresent
I think the “I” word is one of his defense mechanisms. He can’t handle identifying as white because of the associated guilt with historical and present-day racism, so he looks for ways he can be part of “the oppressed.” He does this mostly with the “I” word but also sometimes with Catholicism and class (even though he’s admitted his family moved out of the lower class three generations ago).
He needs to face his whiteness head on and work through those feelings of guilt and shame.
LikeLike
Solitaire
What you say rings very true but in responding in the way he always does it is disrespectful to those who are encountering issues now due to the colour their skin!
Another commenter Zoe called him out on the fact that he has never even been to The Emerald Isle and if that’s true that’s a real shocker as everything he says is based not on reality but on an ideal.
In a way this reminds me of that Rachel woman who let people believe she was black!
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
I thought I heard the same thing you did, but you also came down very heavy right away with the accusations. Your first reply to Resw ended with “Please tell me you’re not a Nazi propagandist.” If you had left out that sentence, you still would have gotten your point across about the Nazi vandalism and could have waited to see how things developed in Resw’s next few replies.
Resw could have just been trolling and said those things in order to lead you to jump to that conclusion and start a ruckus.
He11, Resw could be someone’s research project for all I know. I doubt it because s/he has been here a long time, but stranger things have happened.
LikeLike
@ Omnipresent
Oh, I absolutely agree about how his actions make other people feel. And when he gets called out on it by POC, he accuses them of “I”-word-phobia which adds insult to injury.
He has trouble putting himself in other people’s shoes. His empathy, such as it is, seems to be on an entirely intellectual level.
LikeLike
@ Omnipresent
He says that he’s been to Ireland on visits, but if true that’s still not the same as being from Ireland. He’s even admitted to being ethnically mixed, not 100% Irish. He has English blood, ffs.
If he was actually from Ireland and could share actual stories of oppression and discrimination he had encountered, that would be somewhat different — although he would still need to act with more respect towards others here.
But his sense of oppression is all borrowed. He hasn’t lived it. He’s never been scared to walk out his front door because at any time he might be shot or beaten or raped.
LikeLike
@ Ominpresent
Pressed post too early.
He’s never been scared when he sees a cop or made sure he had his driver’s license before he stepped on the front porch to check his mailbox. He doesn’t know what it’s like to walk into a room full of people of the type who oppress his type.
He needs to admit that he doesn’t know but he tries to insist he does. It’s infuriating.
LikeLike
“He can’t handle identifying as white because of the associated guilt with historical and present-day racism, so he looks for ways he can be part of “the oppressed.” ….
He needs to face his whiteness head on and work through those feelings of guilt and shame.”
.
Apparently, being WHITE for some is a matter of convenience – much like an on and off switch!
He needs to face his racism head on, preferably elsewhere!
LikeLiked by 3 people
@LOM
Oh please stop hiding behind the “I think” or “the jury is out”. Those words are not words you just throw around out of a matter of opinion. You throw them around because you are trying to say he is. With your intellectually dishonest azz.
LikeLike
@Fan…
That is exactly why I don’t feel sorry for him. He knows what he is doing in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Lord of Mirkwood
Nothings changed. You still can’t even take responsibility for the fact that you called Res a Nazi propagandist (the initial derail), that lead to him having to defend himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Notice how he addresses the other white poster here? He doesn’t apologize to the person he actually called a nazi.
He needs to face his racism head on, preferably elsewhere!
I agree! There is only so much bloviating one can take!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Fan
Touche.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
I’ve been thinking about what you said and I have come to the conclusion that when I posted the link where Resw said s/he wasn’t American, I did it partly out of spite.
Resw will probably leap on this as proof that I lied, but if so I lied to myself as well because I hadn’t looked deep enough to admit it to myself. Most likely I never would have except for our interchange about it here.
At the time it happened, I remember thinking something like “Resw and Gro Jo are going to go back and forth about this forever, and I just saw the answer to this so I can nip it in the bud.” But I also did it out of spite and to tweak Resw with the fact that s/he doesn’t hide his/her identity as carefully as s/he professes.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if somewhere in the archives there’s an old thread where someone surmises Resw is not an American and Resw comes back with “you would be wrong.” That old post really doesn’t and didn’t prove anything about Resw’s identity since s/he likes to play the chameleon.
Anyway, from here on forth I do not intend to interact or engage with Resw, even if s/he says something that I would normally feel duty-bound to call out.
I have made this resolution partly because I agree with Afrofem’s assessment on the UN Report thread (link below).
Mostly, however, I’m doing it because you want me to leave Resw alone. I’m telling you this so that in the future you can hold me accountable if necessary.
–
–
–
LikeLike
“There is only so much bloviating one can take!”
.
Yes indeed. People here could actually die from his non-stop, droning on and on, pontificating! I’ve had at least two close calls myself!
The terminally clueless should be regulated to doing more reading than posting (head hurting) comments!
LikeLike
Solitaire
“He has trouble putting himself in other people’s shoes. His empathy, such as it is, seems to be on an entirely intellectual level.”
I don’t believe he has trouble doing this at all. See how quickly he has jumped to another thread where he has now built up to talking about a saviour who happens to be of the same extraction as him!
He has left the cr@p behind on this thread because it is not stuff he can challenge easily and he knows he is exposed.
You could almost look and see a parallel where LoM would like to take on the white saviour role in that he is ‘down’ with the poc who are oppressed!
You mentioned LoM not having to go what people of colour go through regularly. I previously addressed this with him and sensed no empathy whatsoever. Just a very childish and immature attempt to align himself despite never having been through blatant racism himself because he is not a poc. In fact, a mini tantrum ensued where he tried to say he is not white. At a similar time by coincidence I went to the Emerald Isle and I can tell you, those natives there definitely identify as white!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire
“Resw will probably leap on this as proof that I lied, but if so I lied to myself as well because I hadn’t looked deep enough to admit it to myself.”
It’s already well established that you’re a racist liar.
@Lord of Mirkwood
“It is amazing how resw and his sycophants have managed to divert this thread from his trolling behavior to me.”
You and only you diverted when you started personally attacking me for correcting you on something that was on 100% topic. But that’s how you racist trolls behave. Wipe your tears.
“By the way, resw also supports (or, if he is not American, sympathizes with) Donald Trump”
Another deflection to a false accusation you can’t prove. But you’re just upset that everyone sees right through your act.
And you’re supporting Hillary Clinton, who is backed by a current KKK grand dragon, Will Quigg.
@Herneith
“Notice how he addresses the other white poster here? He doesn’t apologize to the person he actually called a nazi.”
We can’t expect that from racists, including Solitaire who hasn’t once apologised for her lies/false accusations.
LikeLike
@ resw
I apologize for accusing you of being a Nazi apologist.
LikeLike
@ Omnipresent
Very good points.
By the way — although it took me two times, I saw what you’re doing there with “the Emerald Isle.” Kind of like the Scottish play, eh?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I don’t accept your apology. You only did it because you were shamed into it. Not because you’re any less of a racist liar.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Thanks for explaining. I get it. I have personally been there, so when you did it I got a gist of why. It feels good at first, but ultimately is empty because you are just spending too much time trying to “get” that person you don’t really know.
@Omnipresent
Very well said and true.
@LOM
Like I suspected, you were using everyone else to fight your battle. Even though you admit to being wrong, you did not want to be seen as wrong. As to Res political affiliation. DON’T CARE. Who he supports has no bearing on providing information accurate of the subject matter on this thread.
LikeLike
@ Sharina
Thank you for prodding me to examine myself. It was beneath me to stoop to that type of tactic. I shall endeavor to hold myself to higher standards and not get carried away by negative emotions.
LikeLike
@LoM
Jeff Elberfeld? Are you still out there? Somewhere?
Yes. I have children to raise, a wife that deserves my love, groceries to do, books to return to the librairy, and shirts I have to iron.
And my work.
All those things are more important to me than a troll hunt.
LikeLike
“Yes. I have children to raise, a wife that deserves my love, groceries to do, books to return to the librairy, and shirts I have to iron.
And my work. ”
.
“Plus, I, too, have a job to do.”
.
You have A job? ONLY ONE JOB????? (figures!)
Not only are you a disingenuous racist, you are a LAZY goat as well!!
When I was in my twenties, I had at least sixteen job, man!
And that was just on Sundays!!
LikeLike
Yes, welcome to Europe, where one job a person is sufficient to live the good life! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
LoM
Why was it necessary to make your last post with reference to macbeth complete with you tube video then calmly attribute all the derailment in this thread entire to resw?
You were in Derailment mode the moment you made the leap to bring in your mothers Jewish stepfather and said you were ‘unable to feel the same passion as when discussing….(paraphrasing now) the usual stuff relating to your distant heritage’. Ie the people of the Emerald Isle. Cos you were called out on it you decided to change tac.
You are consistent in continuing to derail threads and in your wilful ignorance. How long do you think you will be able to continue this before people tune you out in droves?
Your empathy skills really need to be worked on – even on this thread you admit you can’t talk about Jewish matters with the same passion as those of people from the Emerald Isle. Where is your empathy and compassion for humanity? I struggle to see if you can’t do that in this circumstance how you can genuinely comment with empathy for other ethnic groups!
LikeLike
@LoM
///Point taken. Apologies for disturbing you. ///
No apologies are needed; you were not disturbing me.
///I am probably going to sign off on this thread now as well. It is clear that resw has succeeded in derailing it twice over: first from the topic of the post, then from his trolling behavior. Plus, I, too, have a job to do.///
All right. We might give the discussion a reboot by wondering if Trump is as bad as Orbán/Putin/Erdogan by trying to arrest the opposition and to silence the press. That might be more interesting than the sequence of a single event.
But then, still, I wouldn’t have much time to discuss that either.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
Your first comment on this thread was completely off topic, mine was completely on topic. But you white racists protect your own.
LikeLike
Called ‘white racist’…. BINGO! 🙂
LikeLike
Seriously, your first comment was:
“In 1933, when the Nazis first came to power, they began an economic war with the Jews, staging boycotts of Jewish businesses across Germany.”
Of course you have it backwards. In 1933 when Nazis first came to power, Jews began an economic war with Germany first, staging boycotts of German products across the world.
Just so you know the facts, i.e. the proper sequence of events.
This has nothing to do with the question if “Hitler was democratically elected.”
Even worse: as far as I could see, so far you NEVER used any term like ‘democracy,’ ‘democrat,’ ‘democratically,’ ‘elected’ or ‘election.’
And then you say your first comment was “completely on topic?
I do not think so.
LikeLike
If the shoe fits…
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“This has nothing to do with the question if “Hitler was democratically elected.””
Only a moron thinks what happened in 1933 when Hitler was democratically elected has nothing to do with “Hitler was democratically elected”.
LikeLike
Then tell me. So far, all you did was battling with LoM, and filling in my “how not to discuss with whites”-bingo-card.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
I guess you forgot the parts where you and your fellow racist, Solitaire butted in to protect your Lord of Mirkwood’s revisionist view of history. Or the part where you tried hard to justify something he himself admitted was “on squishy ground”.
And at his beck and call, here you are again to his rescue because racists trolls protect their own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jeff Elberfeld
Well…considering you were arguing the events of 1933, then you would not need Res or anyone else to tell you that in 1933 was when Hitler was elected to chancellor. After which the Jews boycotted for fear of further persecution and the Germans retaliated.
Furthermore when you have proven your point then there is no need to repeat it. Not his fault LOM disingenuous behind decided to call him names in which he had to defend.
LikeLike
That is funny. You opposed it when LoM used a label like “Nazi Propagandist” on you, yet still you like to use terms as “racist” and “revisionist” concerning other people.
That said, I did not say anything today that would make LoM’s (or Solitaire’s) words look good. Yet you claim that I am here “again to his rescue.”
I believe it is now your turn to admit that you are wrong.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Well…considering you were arguing the events of 1933, then you would not need Res or anyone else to tell you that in 1933 was when Hitler was elected to chancellor. After which the Jews boycotted for fear of further persecution and the Germans retaliated.
Indeed. So after all, the boycotts had nothing to do with the (re-)election of Hitler as chancellor, since the boycott came after the election. Which makes all the comments here a waste of time.
Furthermore when you have proven your point then there is no need to repeat it.
Ideed again. I just came back to say that I had nio time for this discussion, last weekend.
Not his fault LOM disingenuous behind decided to call him names in which he had to defend.
I do not know about this one. Name-calling is not a good argument. So if someone is calling you a Nazi-propagandist/racist/revisionist/Jewish propagandist, then you do not become one: it just shows that the other ran out of sound arguments.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
LOM is a racist. He has proven that. What you and others claimed made Res a Nazi propagandist was false.
“That said, I did not say anything today that would make LoM’s (or Solitaire’s) words look good. Yet you claim that I am here “again to his rescue.””—You did. You have quite a few post defending LOM being wrong. It was not until I mentioned them both being right that you tried to switch to the old “they both are right but blah blah.”
“I believe it is now your turn to admit that you are wrong.”—Explain why he should considering none of yall have yet to admit you took his words wrong. Solitaire was the only one to. LOM did his usual round about not really admittance and you keep trying to find other things or Res to be wrong about to avoid admitting it.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“You opposed it when LoM used a label like “Nazi Propagandist” on you, yet still you like to use terms as “racist” and “revisionist” concerning other people.”
His label was not true, but you, Solitaire and Lord of Mirkwood racist trolls according to your behavior (not just on this thread, but on others), and each of you defended his “revisionist” view of history despite him admitting it was on “squishy ground”.
“That said, I did not say anything today that would make LoM’s (or Solitaire’s) words look good.”
And who said you did? Or that it was even possible? No one.
“Yet you claim that I am here ‘again to his rescue.'”
Well let’s see, did your Lord of Mirkwood not say, “Jeff Elberfeld? Are you still out there? Somewhere?” Yes. And did you respond with another personal attack against me? Yes.
So don’t be surprised when I attack back.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“So after all, the boycotts had nothing to do with the (re-)election of Hitler as chancellor, since the boycott came after the election. Which makes all the comments here a waste of time.”—Not true. In all that was presented it shows that Hitler was elected Jan. 30th 1933. In March the boycotts started. I am sure it took them a while to get organized and choose a date, but the actual actions did begin following his election and many of the sources make note that the choice to boycott was because his election would result in more persecution. Making the comments valuable.
“Ideed again. I just came back to say that I had nio time for this discussion, last weekend.”–It isn’t my business why you weren’t here, but if you have to explain it to a stranger then you must be finding an excuse for why you had nothing to say.
“So if someone is calling you a Nazi-propagandist/racist/revisionist/Jewish propagandist, then you do not become one: it just shows that the other ran out of sound arguments.”—Well I doubt anyone should have to sit and be happy with false allegations either.
LikeLike
///LOM is a racist. He has proven that. What you and others claimed made Res a Nazi propagandist was false. ////
I never claimed res was a nazi propagandist.
////—You did. You have quite a few post defending LOM being wrong. It was not until I mentioned them both being right that you tried to switch to the old “they both are right but blah blah.”///
I did. But not today. You obviously missed the word again in resw’s “here you are again to his rescue”-part.
///—Explain why he should considering none of yall have yet to admit you took his words wrong. Solitaire was the only one to. LOM did his usual round about not really admittance and you keep trying to find other things or Res to be wrong about to avoid admitting it.///
Because resw obviously is wrong. I could explain why I am not wrong, but then I will be repeating myself.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I have stated my intention to leave Resw alone.
Would you please tell Resw to take my name out of his/her mouth?
LikeLike
///His label was not true, but you, Solitaire and Lord of Mirkwood racist trolls according to your behavior (not just on this thread, but on others), and each of you defended his “revisionist” view of history despite him admitting it was on “squishy ground”.////
Nice, vague wordings. Sorry, but your “I am right and you are wrong because I say so”-argument, doesn’t work, res.
////And who said you did? Or that it was even possible? No one.///
You did. At least, that is what I get from “here you are again to his rescue because racists trolls protect their own..”
///Well let’s see, did your Lord of Mirkwood not say, “Jeff Elberfeld? Are you still out there? Somewhere?” Yes. And did you respond with another personal attack against me? Yes.////
I politely answered his question. And I did not use any personal attack on you.
////So don’t be surprised when I attack back.////
I am not surprised that you came back. Still, I would have appreciated somewhat more class.
LikeLike
@resw
Please do not address Solitaire directly or say anything about her. You may, however, still comment on her comments.
Thank you.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“I never claimed res was a nazi propagandist.”–I never said you did, but you are trying to argue that it is wrong for him to be called one, when it is not because that is what he is No one has show that Res is a nazi propagandist.
“I did. But not today. You obviously missed the word agai”—Just because you stopped doing it today does not mean you never did it. So you are being intellectually dishonest.
“Because resw obviously is wrong. I could explain why I am not wrong, but then I will be repeating mysel”—Well not really because you have never been able to show him as wrong. You only keep claiming he is with no proof. Though a lot of proof has been provided pointing out how he is not.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thank you.
LikeLike
///I never said you did, but you are trying to argue that it is wrong for him to be called one, when it is not because that is what he is No one has show that Res is a nazi ///
That is a lie. You said “What you and others claimed made Res a Nazi propagandist was false.” Not “you or others” but you AND others. So you said I did.
//Just because you stopped doing it today does not mean you never did it. So you are being intellectually dishonest.
Again you missed the word again, to which I was reacting.
///,i.Well not really because you have never been able to show him as wrong. You only keep claiming he is with no proof. Though a lot of proof has been provided pointing out how he is not.
Again, I never said anything about “proof” or, for that matter, “evidence.” Please, stop lying.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“hat you and others claimed made Res a Nazi propagandist was false.”—You don’t have to say it to be agreeing with he claim that he is. You were arguing in agreeance with this false logic, so what lie? The lie you trying to tell to backpeddle?
“Again you missed the word again, to which I was reacting.”—Doesn’t matter if you put again in your statement. YOU WERE STILL DEFENDING HIM BEING WRONG.
“Again, I never said anything about “proof” or, for that matter, “evidence.” Please, stop lying.”—Not once in what you quoted did I say you said anything about “proof” or “evidence”. So you stop throwing around lying to bypass the fact that you are being the liar here. You never were able to show, prove, present him as being wrong. So i you speak on it then it would be a first time of you showing it.
LikeLike
if* not i
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
“Sorry, but your “I am right and you are wrong because I say so”-argument, doesn’t work, res.”
You had ample opportunity to prove your argument, but you failed. Cheer up.
“You did. At least, that is what I get from “here you are again to his rescue because racists trolls protect their own..”
There you go being dishonest just like your fellow racist trolls. We already know you have wild imaginations, but no one made the claim that you said “anything today that would make LoM’s (or Solitaire’s) words look good”
“And I did not use any personal attack on you.”
I apologise. I didn’t realise you were quoting your Lord of Mirkwood.
“Still, I would have appreciated somewhat more class.”
Well there was nothing classy about defending your Lord of Mirkwood’s false accusations and revisionist view of history or making a phony analogy to Rosa Parks.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Is this fair: “please instruct that racist troll“?
I intend to stick to my resolution, but it will be difficult if I’m going to continue to be subjected to personal attacks.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Comment deleted. Please do not address resw or talk about him either. You can still comment on his comments though.
LikeLike
@resw
Jeff would have been better off to remove himself from the discussion the moment he realized he was off base, but instead he had to continue on. Then wants to scream liar after giving a lecture about name calling. He could not be sly with his hypocrisy?!
LikeLike
@”Is this fair: “please instruct that racist troll“?”
I see there was no confusion about the reference. The shoe fits.
“I intend to stick to my resolution, but it will be difficult if I’m going to continue to be subjected to personal attacks.”
Boo hoo. People should learn not to START personal attacks if they can’t accept the consequences.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
I agree, but it’s expected. White supremacy is all about propping up the double standards so you never have to say you’re sorry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@”.You may, however, still comment on her comments.”
LikeLike
@resw
I have a family emergency. I do not have time to deal with your dickitude. Your comments are moderated till further notice. If you try to get around the moderation, you will be banned.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL@”dickitude”! No worries, I don’t need to comment on your site any longer. After all, you give Lord of Mirkwood free reign to derail your threads with talk of Ireland and with spam promoting his blog posts, yet get mad at me for doing something you just sanctioned.
I should have know you changed for the worst ever since you started making illogical excuses for Hillary Clinton, a clear racist, warmonger and criminal.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I’m sorry to hear it and apologize for bothering you at a bad time. Sending wishes to you and your family that all will be well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Abagond:
All the best and good luck.
Whatever we are discussing here on the internet, the events that happen in real life are far more important.
Again all the best,
Jeff
@resw, sharinalr, Solitaire and Lord of Mirkwood:
Thank you all for participating in this discussion.
Good night from my part of the world,
Jeff
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nothing good will ever come out of comparing anything to Hitler and the Nazis on the internet. This is is the first time I clicked on this thread and I’m not surprised that the comment section is a war zone. Hitler is a central figure in a very bloody world war and campaign of genocide. Comparing anyone to Hitler will provoke extremely emotionally charged arguments especially when the individuals being likened to him have quite evidently failed to build up an equivalent résumé of evil.
Nonetheless, I will, against my better judgement, dip my big toe into the discussion from another angle. I’d argue that America’s closest brush with a Hitler-like presidency already occurred in G.W Bush. The September 11, 2001 attacks on the financial and political capitals of the USA was like the Reichstag fire in that it both scared and galvanized the nation to retaliate. Blame was quickly apportioned to “terrorists” leading to the “War on Terror” and ushering in a new era of U.S military intervention in West Asia, the effects of which linger today. Civil liberties were also eroded thanks to the Patriot Act and there was accelerated militarization of police with a greater emphasis on ‘Homeland Security’ and domestic spying. Many of today’s concerns materialized, as if in a flash, from Dubya’s era. The notion that Trump could be Dubya 2.0 is scarier to me in that it hits much closer to home.
PS: Hope whatever issues abagond is having resolve themselves quickly and favorably. All the best.
LikeLiked by 2 people
it’s interesteing that the recent veto issue with obama over the ‘ability’ to sue a sovereign country for terrorism adds a vector into the ‘9/11 truther’ aspect, as well as a ‘fresh look’ into govt’ involvement, ie bush in florida with the royal saudis; and is diplomatically annoying i’m sure to the saudis and the administration since riyadh is a major air base for the US.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire @ Jeff
Thanks.
@resw
Your comments are no longer automatically moderated.
LikeLike
If any comparison of Trump is to be made, then comparing him to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or Josef Djugashvili would be more apt.
Comparing Trump to Hitler betrays a huge hole of understanding the true events of the Second World War and its aftermath.
Learn about the Holomodor.
And learn about Roosevelt’s betrayal of the American public by dragging them into a war that they neither needed or wanted.
And was it not Roosevelt that was responsible for the internment of American Japanese during Second World War. Comparing Trump’s intentions with Mexicans and Muslims should draw closer parallels.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Like Hitler, Trump can also start acting independently and thus become a big surprise for the people who had promoted him to the top.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Project ENGAGE.
LikeLike