Jewish influence on Australia is problematic (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

Far-left ideology is literally such a broad set of ideologies, how can you claim all of it is inherently violent? You can't actually rebut any of my claims so you have to just resort to "huh at least im not a commie!". The Guatemalan protest turned violent because the police regime before Arbenz tried to violently suppress dissent. It started off with peaceful strikes.

The Guatemalan protest turned violent? What? It was literally a coup for fuck's sake

And every socialist country is history has 'violently supressed dissent'.

Nothing like that has happened in Australia, until the Gaza protests.

yes, because they don't have the support to be violent. If they could overthrow the government, they would do it TODAY, and would do anyhing it took.

And again, you're saying 'the commies are being peaceful!', but so are the far-right, and yet you come up with hypthetical future reasons to take away their right to protest today.

But let me guess? People screeching 'globalise the intifada' only want peace, right?

 

[SylviaB]

If Aryan status is given, then it can be taken away.

It just means 'nazis wanted to kill anyone who wasn't aryan' is a meaningless statement. It's literally equivalent to saying 'Nazis wanted to kill anyone they didn't like'. It doesn't predict a particular group would or wouldn't be killed.

Of course, the idea that Hitler wanted to kill anyone not deemed aryan is complete, unadulterated horseshit.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

The Guatemalan protest turned violent? What? It was literally a coup for fuck's sake

And every socialist country is history has 'violently supressed dissent'.



yes, because they don't have the support to be violent. If they could overthrow the government, they would do it TODAY, and would do anyhing it took.

And again, you're saying 'the commies are being peaceful!', but so are the far-right, and yet you come up with hypthetical future reasons to take away their right to protest today.

But let me guess? People screeching 'globalise the intifada' only want peace, right?

1. "The Guatemalan protest turned violent? What? It was literally a coup for fuck's sake

And every socialist country is history has 'violently supressed dissent'."

a. I admire that you're speaking so boldly yet you're so unbelievably uneducated on the topic. The Guatemalan coup initially began with the dictatorship of Jorge Ubico who violently suppressed peaceful mass strikes against the suspension of constitution and economic unrest using martial law. Ubico resigned and appointed a military junta as an interrim government who was deposed in a violent coup. So yes, the protests began as peaceful and turned violent after repeated use of violence by the dictatorship.

b. Not every socialist nation has this clearly as I stated two examples of a non-authoritarian, democratic socialist nation that did not use violent force to maintain order.

2. "
yes, because they don't have the support to be violent. If they could overthrow the government, they would do it TODAY, and would do anyhing it took.

And again, you're saying 'the commies are being peaceful!', but so are the far-right, and yet you come up with hypothetical future reasons to take away their right to protest today.

But let me guess? People screeching 'globalise the intifada' only want peace, right?"

a. You're saying simultaneously that the Communist Party both lacks the support to try and overthrow the government but also claim that they would do anything it takes to overthrow the government, which would presumably include support? If they were willing to do anything it took to overthrow the government, they would've done it already and the fact they haven't directly disproves your argument.

b. The far-right is being peaceful as a guise, which they have ADMITTED on their own accord. This is not a hypothetical future reason, this is the reasoning they give to why they are peaceful currently.

c. Not everybody who says "globalise the intifada" is a socialist or leftist, multiple Palestinian right-wing groups also echo the same sentiment. The term intifada was used to signify aggressive yet non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation and has since been twisted by Zionist media to signify violent revolution which it clearly is not.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

It just means 'nazis wanted to kill anyone who wasn't aryan' is a meaningless statement. It's literally equivalent to saying 'Nazis wanted to kill anyone they didn't like'. It doesn't predict a particular group would or wouldn't be killed.

Of course, the idea that Hitler wanted to kill anyone not deemed aryan is complete, unadulterated horseshit.

You don't actually engage with any of my argument and Hitler, himself, literally predicted he would exterminate Slavs, Jews, Roma, the disabled, Communists etc. as a part of Lebensraum. The fact that he killed millions to service this goal proves it's not horseshit.

 

[Socialism]

Germany wasn't colonialist anyway

ok leaving aside this post, this conversation, and this thread

context: german colonial empire at its peak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire#/media/File:German_colonial.PNG


It seems like it's a bit more nuanced then just "they weren't colonialist"... based on what I can see from my very limited searching, Hitler would have liked to get the colonies for free but was otherwise not concerned with them.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2143721

"The claim for Germany's colonial possessions will be voiced from year to year with increasing vigor," declared der Führer to the Reichstag on February 20, 1938. It was on the very eve of his Austrian coup, and therefore his colonial plans could be expressed with greater force than at the close of the year 1937 when he had said: "The colonies are our lost property and the world will be obliged to return them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)#Plans_for_Africa

His public announcements prior to the outbreak of the war that Germany's former colonies be returned to it served primarily as bargaining chips to further territorial goals in Europe itself.
...
However, Hitler's interest in African colonies were mostly for reasons of international prestige by pressure from the German elites, but he himself was indifferent and was even opposed to the creation a German colonial policy in Africa because it did not fulfill the goal of Drang nach Osten (a colonial policy over Eastern Europe), being convinced that African affairs would be a distraction from Germany's real socio-economic goal of achieving Lebensraum,

In saying all that, all of the North Africa stuff is definitely reminiscent of colonialism if not exactly

 

[SylviaB]

ok leaving aside this post, this conversation, and this thread

context: german colonial empire at its peak
View attachment 51664
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire#/media/File:German_colonial.PNG


It seems like it's a bit more nuanced then just "they weren't colonialist"... based on what I can see from my very limited searching, Hitler would have liked to get the colonies for free but was otherwise not concerned with them.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2143721




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)#Plans_for_Africa


In saying all that, all of the North Africa stuff is definitely reminiscent of colonialism if not exactly

nazi germany, not 'germany, ever'.

 

[SylviaB]

You don't actually engage with any of my argument and Hitler, himself, literally predicted he would exterminate Slavs, Jews, Roma, the disabled, Communists etc. as a part of Lebensraum. The fact that he killed millions to service this goal proves it's not horseshit.

Disabled people and communists can be and were nordic.

Therefore, your arugment is self-defeating.

 

[Socialism]

nazi germany, not 'germany, ever'.

i don't want to continue the cycle here but like i feel like i made it clear i was talking specifically about nazi germany... i even said that the map was just for context you could have just ignored my post

 

[WTbattleace]

Australia is historically rooted in Judeo-Christian values. It is a fact. We cannot change that. We must honour our past, just like not ignoring the history of First Nations Peoples.

Australia has a rich Jewish history, being one of the countries to take on board the most Jewish refugees fleeing Europe. In fact, we used to have the second highest holocaust survivor statistic per capita except for Israel. Also, there were Jewish settlers who landed here post-1788.

Personally, I am more concerned of the fact that radical Islamist individuals are here now, who pertain to a highly hostile religion that states in their manuscript (the Quran), that they must rid the infidels from the world.

Jewish people are not the problem here, and they have never been. They are a peaceful group, they stick to themselves and don't agitate and shit-stir on the streets on a weekly basis (cough free Palestine). It is 1. Jewish hatred, and associating all of the world's misfortunes with Jewish involvement and "lobbying", 2. Piss weak Labor government that is way too soft on these radical Islamists who actively voice the destruction of an entire ethnic race of people (party because they are of afraid of them) and 3. Stereotyping Jewish people as deceptive, mischievous, horrible people, etc.

Anyways that is my take on it.

 

[Interdice]

Australia is historically rooted in Judeo-Christian values. It is a fact. We cannot change that.

Okay then. Let's outlaw LGBTQ marriage. How Judeo-Christian are you?

ALso Judeo-Christian? No one outside of conservative Americans(who also hate Jews, and believe that them going to hell will send them to heaven) says that. Either you're a Jew, or some Goyim traitor

Australia has a rich Jewish history, being one of the countries to take on board the most Jewish refugees fleeing Europe. In fact, we used to have the second highest holocaust survivor statistic per capita except for Israel. Also, there were Jewish settlers who landed here post-1788.

Fuck the Jews. Maybe if they behaved better, they wouldn't be expelled from every country they've been in.

Personally, I am more concerned of the fact that radical Islamist individuals are here now, who pertain to a highly hostile religion that states in their manuscript (the Quran), that they must rid the infidels from the world.

I'll take a Muslim over an LGBTQ supporting, money stealing, homocidal Jew. Least they know that being gay is wrong, and don't affect my freedom of speech.

Jewish people are not the problem here, and they have never been. They are a peaceful group, they stick to themselves and don't agitate and shit-stir on the streets on a weekly basis (cough free Palestine). It is 1. Jewish hatred, and associating all of the world's misfortunes with Jewish involvement and "lobbying", 2. Piss weak Labor government that is way too soft on these radical Islamists who actively voice the destruction of an entire ethnic race of people (party because they are of afraid of them) and 3. Stereotyping Jewish people as deceptive, mischievous, horrible people, etc.

These comically evil fuckers are actually cartoonish. These fuckers destroyed freedom of speech in Australia, and their Jew President told me not to enter the CBD. Australia for the Australian not the Jew. If the Jew doesn't like Australia, he's free to go back to NYC or Tel Aviv.

Even the middle class ones, support the crimes of the upper class Jews, and are complacent in their crimes against us. They're all comfortable in Tel Aviv or NYC, using the rest of the world, and the rest of the people as pawns in their fucked up game

Fuck them all.

 

[WTbattleace]

Okay then. Let's outlaw LGBTQ marriage. How Judeo-Christian are you? ALso Judeo-Christian? Either you're a Jew, or some Goyim traitor


Fuck the Jews. Maybe if they behaved better, they wouldn't be expelled from every country they've been in.


I'll take a Muslim over an LGBTQ supporting, money stealing, homocidal Jew. Least they know that being gay is wrong, and don't affect my freedom of speech.


These comically evil fuckers are actually cartoonish. These fuckers destroyed freedom of speech in Australia, and their Jew President told me not to enter the CBD. Australia for the Australian not the Jew. If the Jew doesn't like Australia, he's free to go back to NYC or Tel Aviv.

Even the middle class ones, support the crimes of the upper class Jews, and are complacent in their crimes against us. They're all comfortable in Tel Aviv or NYC, using the rest of the world, and the rest of the people as pawns in their fucked up game

Fuck them all.

You are one angry individual, and your intemperate ranting and raving only seems to justify my arguments even more.

 

[Interdice]

You are one angry individual

Damn straight. I don't look kindly upon people who bring their fucked up genocidal culture here, and try to steal my freedom of speech. Fuck them all.

 

[Interdice]

intemperate ranting and raving only seems to justify my arguments even more.

We have freedom of opinion. Or at least we had, until Australia's real president came last monday, and fucked everything up.

 

[Interdice]

It just means 'nazis wanted to kill anyone who wasn't aryan' is a meaningless statement. It's literally equivalent to saying 'Nazis wanted to kill anyone they didn't like'. It doesn't predict a particular group would or wouldn't be killed.

Of course, the idea that Hitler wanted to kill anyone not deemed aryan is complete, unadulterated horseshit.

Hitler wasted no time, murdering Slavs, who are amongst the closest related race to Germanic/Italic/Celtic Aryans. And he killed a shit ton of Roma too.

Where's the evidence that he would spare Indians, Chinese, Native Americans, Persians, Africans etc, if he got his hands on them?If you wanna support Hitler that's cool, but at least express at least indifference on him desiring to kill minorities.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

Disabled people and communists can be and were nordic.

Therefore, your arugment is self-defeating.

This actually doesn't defeat my argument and only further proves that Hitler killed anybody who wasn't Aryan and Nordic because a logical extension of his beliefs meant he wanted a "genetically pure" race of which he believed communists and the disabled were "defects". Therefore, my core argument still stands.

 

[Interdice]

https://www.reddit.com/r/aussie/comments/1r8ou01
Pathetic insecure people and enemies to freedom. If I had any Jewish friends, I'd cut them off. None of my friends are Jewish. Tho one is a Zionist. But he doesn't get offended by my Jew jokes, so we're still cool.

For legal reasons, I advise none of you to follow my footsteps. What I do on my own is my own business, and what I tell others to do is also my business, and I'm not tellling anyone to do anything

 

[SylviaB]

This actually doesn't defeat my argument and only further proves that Hitler killed anybody who wasn't Aryan and Nordic because a logical extension of his beliefs meant he wanted a "genetically pure" race of which he believed communists and the disabled were "defects". Therefore, my core argument still stands.

It makes your statement meaningless. "Hitler wanted to kill anyone who isn't nordic" doesn't mean anything, because "nordic" doesn't mean anything. If anyone or anyone can be arbitrarily designated "nordic" or not, it just means that your point is actually "Hitler wanted to kill anyone he didn't like", which makes him no different to Stalin or Mao.

 

[SylviaB]

Hitler wasted no time, murdering Slavs, who are amongst the closest related race to Germanic/Italic/Celtic Aryans. And he killed a shit ton of Roma too.

Where's the evidence that he would spare Indians, Chinese, Native Americans, Persians, Africans etc, if he got his hands on them?If you wanna support Hitler that's cool, but at least express at least indifference on him desiring to kill minorities.

He mostly killed slavs who resisted Germans invading the USSR. If those same slavs had overthrown the soviet government and established a republic friendly to Germany, he wouldn't have killed them, even if he didn't like slavs. Much of his suspicion towards slavs was born of fears that they were promoting/would promote communism in central europe.

Hitler was not trying to take over the world. He wasn't even trying to rule all of Europe. Even if he liked the idea of some 'world domination' kind of thing, he knew Germany would never have enough people to do this, and even if he ruled over non-western countries, he would need the existing populations to actually maintain these countries. If he ruled over India, why would he want to engage in mass killings of India? They're not in the way of anything, they're not a subversive element living in German society. They would be imperial subjects used to run and maintain India, and there would never be enough Germans to populate the world. His hostility towards jews, slavs, roma etc were for specific reasons (which is not to say valid reasons), not just 'they exist and they're not my favoured race so I need to kill them'.

I'm not "supporting Hitler", I'm correcting this cartoon villain understanding of him.

 

[SylviaB]

https://www.reddit.com/r/aussie/comments/1r8ou01
Pathetic insecure people and enemies to freedom. If I had any Jewish friends, I'd cut them off. None of my friends are Jewish. Tho one is a Zionist. But he doesn't get offended by my Jew jokes, so we're still cool.

For legal reasons, I advise none of you to follow my footsteps. What I do on my own is my own business, and what I tell others to do is also my business, and I'm not tellling anyone to do anything

The people crying about this support European style hate speech laws that result in people being jailed for political expression.

 

[parmesean]

this thread is giving mega autism vibes