Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

Discussion in 'SBAF Blogs' started by purr1n, Dec 26, 2018.

  1. wormcycle

    wormcycle Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    What you described in your post is hardly a welfare state, but that's all about Hitler's motivation. But the state he build had a very strong welfare component, there is no way to deny that.
    Interesting response. You describe the depravity and murderous character of the Nazi state, and then draw the conclusion that it cannot be called the welfare state, no matter how many welfare programs it actually introduced and maintained.
    Is that because you consider a welfare state as something inherently good? Historian looked at the budget and how many people the National Socialist People's Welfare employed and it was not a token institutions. It does not make a Nazi state look any less evil, it is just a fact.
     
  2. Deep Funk

    Deep Funk Deep thoughts - Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    9,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Home Page:
    Thing is, the Nazi party built on the existing Weimar republic and when they got into power heavily invested in the German economy. After the Treaty of Versailles Germany lost a lot of wealth. The Nazis (as in German national socialists!) brought a lot of wealth back and that brought them the power they later needed.

    Neville Chamberlain did the rest...

    P.S. I used to be interested in cars and air planes. The innovations in the 1920ties and 1930ties with regards to combustion engines and later jet engines in Germany were staggering. A lot of money was pumped into technology under the Nazi party. No wonder they were difficult to stop in W.W. 2.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  3. winders

    winders boomer

    Banned
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Martin, CA
    To understand the German Nazi State, you need to understand the genesis of that State. For that, you need to understand what was done to Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. I had relatives that lived in Germany from the late 1890's to the late 1970's. Their stories of what Germany was like right after the WWI would make you cringe. Hitler never would have come to power had not the conditions brought on by the Treaty of Versailles not existed. That doesn't justify anything Hitler did. It just explains how the German people allowed such a person to gain so much power.
     
  4. Psalmanazar

    Psalmanazar Most improved member; A+

    Pyrate Slaytanic Cliff Clavin
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    5,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Serfs were not chattel slaves even if they or the rights to their services could have been bought and sold in many places. They were not slaves. They did not engage in plantation agriculture. They themselves were not property and their physical bodies were not owned even if the lord had the right to whip them. Slaves were another category of people. These guys fought hand, tooth, and nail physically and legally over their place in the hierarchy and what kind of serf they were.
     
  5. Deep Funk

    Deep Funk Deep thoughts - Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    9,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Home Page:
    True. There was a thin line of distinction between a serf and a slave. Very thin.

    What I really wanted to say is this: how you treat your lowest workers/subjects/employees usually says something about you. Well Medieval serfs were not treated well unless they had the good graces to serve a kind lord. Pass that kind of behaviour over, generations later some Europeans land on a new continent to claim as theirs. Guess how the new rulers treat their new local subjects in many cases?

    In NL some rioters want to tear down the J.P. Coen statue. He was an asshole because experience and orders from the V.O.C. told him to be very strict. Then think about the waves of chaos and violence the Dutch Seven Provinces had gone through since 1568. Makes you think.

    Interesting figure, difficult times. See J.P. Coen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Pieterszoon_Coen
     
  6. penguins

    penguins Friend, formerly known as fp627

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2018
    Likes Received:
    3,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SouthernCA
    I have a legit rhetorical question (not a troll or provoking question):
    Does anyone know in a science based study or brain dissections and scans or whatever we want to call it why racism exists and why has it been so strong through most of human history? Is it because of people needing to simplify life into good/bad where of course you can't be the bad guy in your own story? Or is it a remnant of our monkey stone age (220k years vs ~5k modern known history) brains where it was "my tribe fight your tribe so gimme bananas/cows/shiny things"? Something even easier?

    Asking b/c in the middle of all the problems the US is facing, I haven't seen this question asked anywhere... may be helpful to know this if we really want to put an end to it all. And if it really is a normal human behavior in most or at least a significant number of people per how our brains are wired/work (just like over-eating or other unhealthy habits) - then shouldn't we know this so we can just live with it and work around it? I've asked racists (of all races) this before and got more or less the same answers for why they individually are racist, so I figure there must be an underlying base denominator somewhere.
     
  7. Case

    Case Anxious Head (Formerly Wilson)

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ohio, USA. Home of the eclipse
    Quite some time ago, I noticed that Glen Beck used to zone in on the "Socialist" in the National Socialist Party in order to somehow link it to the Left .
    Like many modern nation-states, Germany had welfare programs. But welfare programs were not the defining feature of the Third Reich, hence my objection to it being called a welfare state. Let's call it for what it was. Definitions do matter...
    From Britannica
    Welfare state, concept of government in which the state or a well-established network of social institutions plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization..

    So Nazi Germany is still the most advanced welfare state?
     
  8. Deep Funk

    Deep Funk Deep thoughts - Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    9,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Home Page:
    Time to read some Jared Diamond books I guess. He chose some fascinating topics.
     
  9. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    My point was we had slavery because of capitalism and its desire for profits. Christian discourse was used by both sides. We had plantation slaves who built the US infrastructure for 300 years, and then the blacks who suffered under Jim Crow for 100 more years. Of course before that Native Americans were dispossessed so capitalism could take root here.

    The North hardly ever used militias, and the first time the president did use a militia, it was to disarm another militia: the Whiskey Rebels.

    The South knew quite well that the North was hostile to slavery even under the Article of Confederation. Most of the political jockeying by the South was to preserve slavery against the criticism of hostile northern states.

    They didn't have the means to fund their terrorist militias against slaves, so they needed to rely on private ownership of guns to arm the militias. The North had the power to influence the federal government to ban the arming of militias through private means, and thus take away the slaveholders means for preventing slaves from running away or revolting.

    You do know the South was behind the 2nd Amendment explicitly to arm militias to intimidate and kill slaves, right? That's completely documented and no scholar will doubt it. It's not even controversial. Why the South wanted armed militia wasn't to fight the British, it was to kill and exploit slaves. Period.

    LOL I rest my case.

    Sure. I mean big statues of leaders are one of the hallmarks of dreck, especially the awful "art" Stalinism produced, so go right ahead and destroy them.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  10. Psalmanazar

    Psalmanazar Most improved member; A+

    Pyrate Slaytanic Cliff Clavin
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    5,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're full of it. Northern colonies long had the right to bear arms. The thirteen colonies were largely a frontier society. Defund the police and people will arm themselves to the teeth for their own protection. Try to take away their guns and they won't care. What police will take them? People who don't want to be questioned by police would hate to have a warband come knocking at their door. Police may or may not use force. A posse or warband out to round up a criminal suspect?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earp_Vendetta_Ride

    or worse, collective punishment in the style of warfare practiced from prehistory to the present that the USA itself has engaged in numerous times, putting us on equal footing with Vikings and Conquistadors. The societies run by the ancestors of the people who claim oppression by white males in the early modern period to the present were even worse behaved by the standards of the present. Illiterate, less organized societies kill each other at a much higher rate than any organized state not marching off to total war. The Inca committed genocide and ethnic cleansing that Pizarro couldn't even conceive of but they lost so in the popular 20th century conscious they were good and the conquistadors greedy and evil. Pizzaro garroted Atahualpa so Pizarro is bad even if Atahualpa, if he had captured Pizarro and the Spanish, had told the Inca nobles he would kill the Spanish rank and file, castrate Pizarro for disrespecting him, and humiliate him by forcing him to serve as his eunuch slave for the rest of his life. You can't judge the distant past by the present.

     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  11. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    Nope. The origin of the right to bear arms was to allow armed white militias to shoot down black slaves who had the temerity to try to become free. To point guns at people's heads takes a lot of effort and resources. The South was so preoccupied with slave uprisings that it failed to develop a modern economy and lost the Civil War.

    Societies based on coercion through the threat of violence are very inefficient and usually implode at some point.

    I'm for a fully funded trained police force, appointed by an elected government.
     
  12. winders

    winders boomer

    Banned
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Martin, CA
  13. TheIceman93

    TheIceman93 El pato-zorro

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,300
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    SoCal
    Bullshit. Three of the first four states to adopt an individual right to bear arms in their state constitutions (prior to the federal law) were in the North where slavery was banned. Those states were Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The only pro slavery Southern state to have an individual right to bear arms was North Carolina.

    If the right to bear arms was intended to arm militias to capture runaway slaves, then why was prototype language for the 2nd Amendment taken from the constitutions of Northern states that had explicitly banned slavery in the same document?

    This notion is 100% false. Even if Southern states like Virginia intended to use the 2nd Amendment to arm pro slavery militias, the very idea for the 2nd Amendment came from the North where slavery was banned.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  14. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    The 2nd Amendment's language was taken by Madison from the Virginia Constitution, written by George Mason, a notorious slave owner who was petrified by slave revolts. He wanted to end the importation of slaves because slaves already by his time constituted a large minority of the population, and in many counties a majority. He was convinced that slaves needed to be suppressed by violence or they would take over. In short, he was a typical insecure white criminal whose entire existence depended on the exploitation, torture, rape and killing of slaves.

    Mason (like all Southern slave holders) was fixated on the various slave revolts that had occurred in the recent past. All of them had been put down by militias. That was the basic purpose of the militia in the south: to suppress and kill slaves. Southern slave owners were frightened that the federal government, being under the influence of anti-slavery Northerners would prevent the south from using militias from terrorizing the slaves.

    Thus the 2nd Amendment was born out sheer fear of slave uprising by a class of insecure criminals who owned them. That's the only reason we have it. And that, my friend, is the noble history of the 2nd Amendment.
     
  15. winders

    winders boomer

    Banned
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Martin, CA
    Again, revisionist history. Peddle those lies if you want, but that does not make them true.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
  16. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    Nobody at the time pretended the 2nd Amendment was anything but a pro-Southern slave owner amendment.

    "Very few, if any, African-Americans accepted their status as slaves. Most, if not all, slaveowneres were completely aware of this and, in general, they lived in fear of the African-Americans under the control. Not only did slaveowners expect slaves to run away, letters and diaries give strong evidence that slaveowners (and even non-slaveowners) in the south believed that rebellion was imminent. They had lived with this fear since 1792 when the Haitian Revolution proved unambiguously that slaves were ready to revolt and could do so with a passion that was awe-inspiring. Added to this mix was the fiery rhetoric of abolitionists, both black and white. The most frightening, to the slaveowners, of these abolitionists was Henry Highland Garnet who had escaped from slavery at the age of ten. In 1843 he called for a slave strike and suggested that it escalate to a slave revolt. By this point, the south had been rocked by three slave revolts which had struck fear to the very hearts of slaveowners."

    https://www.fold3.com/page/1437-slave-rebellion/stories


    Some history on Southern Militias:

    "There was in colonial Virginia a relentless fear of slave uprisings. Rumors and reports fed the anxieties of a slaveholding society, and some of them were founded in fact. But there was no organized slave uprising in Virginia until well into the nineteenth century. All the plots were uncovered or betrayed before they could be carried out. Luck—bad for the slaves, good for the masters—played a role, but there were other factors."

    "The Norfolk conspiracy led to further crackdowns on the slave population and stringent demands on Virginia's militia. The militia was made up not of paid professional military men but of farmers and planters, many of whom did not own slaves. Armed and mounted, the militia's job was to patrol the countryside in search of suspicious gatherings, a dangerous process so time-consuming that it "has occasioned a good deal of Fatigue to the Militia, and some loss in their Crops, as happening at a time their Labour & Industry were much wanted in their Grounds." This expensive system of policing brought grumbles from the poor whites who owned no slaves themselves and were unable to pay fines for failure to perform the required militia duty. They recognized that the system favored the slave-owning minority who were compensated with tax money for slaves that were executed and who could buy their way out of participating in the patrols. The resentment of poor whites would reach its peak during the Civil War when similar exemptions excused slave owners from the fighting."

    https://newafrikan77.wordpress.com/...lion-slave-conspiracies-in-colonial-virginia/

    Emphasis mine.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  17. TheIceman93

    TheIceman93 El pato-zorro

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,300
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    SoCal
    I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. Madison's true intentions for the 2nd Amendment is clearly articulated in The Federalist Papers 46. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

    Furthermore. The English Bill of Rights from 1689 contains a statement on citizens rights to keep and bear arms - "have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This is where the idea came from and it carried over to the colonies. It also had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. That is why it was a right agreed upon by both the Northern and Southern states when it came time to draft the Constitution. The framers were undoubtedly familiar with British Judge William Blackstone's writings on the subject which predate any individual state constitution.

    Again, if the right to bear arms was all about upholding slavery, than why were the Northern states, where slavery was banned, the first states to put such language in their state constitutions?

    Mason probably did have bad intentions and wanted to use armed militias to stop slave revolts but that in no way applies to Northern states. Just because someone found a away to use a just cause for evil does not mean that the core idea was evil. You are simply misinformed about this subject.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  18. winders

    winders boomer

    Banned
    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Martin, CA
  19. RobS

    RobS RobS? More like RobDiarrhea.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    .
    They had to ratify a lot of nonsense (like the 3/4 rule) to get the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It was argued and negotiated up until the eleventh hour. Virtually every provision was a compromise.

    But there is NO doubt the 2nd Amendment was a Southern provision. It was written by a Southerner preoccupied with the fear of slave revolts, as I posted above.

    Do you really believe it was enacted out of some noble sense of freeman defending their liberties against potential government usurpation?
     
  20. dmckean44

    dmckean44 In a Sherwood S6040CP relationship

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Peoria, IL

    More specifically, they wanted a French Revolution scenario to be able to easily play out here without any trouble. Many of our founding fathers witnessed the evens of the French Revolution first hand and considered it the greatest event in human history.
     

Share This Page