Zou een verbod hebben geholpen?

https://www.groene.nl/artikel/de-swastika-de-duitse-ku-klux-klan

Citaat:

Het verbieden van Hitlers bijeenkomsten werd algemeen beschouwd als een maatregel van orde zonder enige politieke betekenis, waarbij Hitler en de zijnen als rustverstoorders werden aangemerkt. Toch is er een geweldige macht in de krachtige militaire beweging die hij heeft samengesteld.

Er valt te betwijfelen of de ramp genaamd WO2 zich niet had voltrokken indien bijeenkomsten van #Hitler’s partij succesvol waren verboden, ihkv rustverstoring. Aangezien er aanleiding was tot Hitler’s optreden/onvrede (zoals welbekend: verdrag van Versaille; retributiejustitie – het was een straf aan het Duitse volk voor wat hun overheersers hadden gedaan), was er toch we iets gebeurt, misschien anders maar er was wel iets gebeurd.

Advertisements

Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging en onomatopoeia

https://www.geni.com/projects/Nationaal-Socialistische-Beweging/39414

Hoe heet het ook alweer wanneer een beroep uitkiest dat zo goed bij je naam past? Lijkt op onomatopoeia denk ik. Zie op deze pagina o.a. Jacob Jeswiet, botanist.
Het blijkt dat Albertus de Joode uit Oostzaan ook lid is geweest van de NSB. Tegenwoordig zit er in Oostzaan nog een kapperszaak die “Coos de Joode” heet. Hoe vaak zou Albertus zijn achternaam moeten hebben uitleggen?

Nu ben ik trouwens tegenwoordig vrij mild geworden tav NSB’ers, behalve als ze tijdens de verovering/bezetting/zeg maar gerust: de oorlog, lid zijn gebleven; want de jaren ’30 waren verwarrend, net als die van nu, trouwens. In,de jaren 30 waren er veel lid geworden van de NSB, omdat ze wilden voorkomen dat “De Unie” teveel macht kreeg. Weet iemand wat “de unie” voor organisatie was?

Roverheid

De Haagse junta is zo’n mislukking, dat we wel een Nederlands alternatief voor het Engelse “failed state” nodig hadden.
Niet in staat om de burgers te beschermen tegen de Michaels P. van deze wereld, (of tegen de Hertogen van Alva/Keizers van Frankrijk/Oostenrijkers van Duitsland) blijven ze maar de burgers schofferen (Rutte3/Klaver1).

Definition of Fascism by Merriam-Webster is wrong

The dictionary definition of fascism is wrong:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

includes the statement

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

It is right in so many respects, yet becomes PC in one: it claims that fascism is racist; “exalts nation and often race”. Whie true that the facists (under Mussolini) attacked Ethiopia, where people of a different race lived. But this was only done for the greater glory of the political monstrosity called the nation.
Fascism wasn’t racist; at least it was not anti-semitic, there were some prominent fascists who were jews. It was only when the frustrated German socialists yanked the fascist strings (and even invaded Italy at one point) when jews got persecuted for their race.

Fascism was the ultimate expression of politics, and its spirit still lives on. The greater glory of the political construct (hence fable) was elevated above all other interests, including (especially) those of the people. This is eerily similar to the right-wing:

  • The right wing sacrifices the interests of the people to big business
  • The left wing sacrifices the interests of the people to their own petty pleasures.

One iftose pleasures will likely be “basking in the glory of a great nation”, this is were the lines between left and right blur: the left will find part of their desired glory in economic power (which led to Stalin’s Gulag slavery).

This is where the myth comes from that fascism means the integration of the state and the corporation: politics finds particular glory in economic power, sobusinesses get preferetial treatment. Also, because fascism is socialism, corporations were nationalized, which also fed the myth.

Argument in favor of the counterterrorism-hypothesis

It is my hypothesis that #9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (i.e. the islamic terrorist attacks there) were not terrorism, but rather counterterrorism.
Anyone who disagrees with me is free to get in front of a live TV camera and proclaim that:

#Saddam #Hussayn was a darling of a man! His regime fully deserved all the financial and operational support that #DC gave it.

It is the unending interference in foreign (Arabic, Persian, Latin American, Asian, even Russian) affairs (which I term “#theFourthReich”) that gets countless citizens killed (if one includes the citizens who got drafted or sign up, the numbers get much higher)
Therefore the original terrorism is Christian, not #Islamic. And that possibly inflaming statement is justified by the fact that it is a practical impossibilllity to get elected to any US government office, unless one is a #Christian.

Woningtekort

Bij mijn weten heerst er al decennia lang een woningtekort. Gevolg van de roverheid die de prijzen hoog wil houden (vraag-aanbod), om de bouwvakkers lekker te spekken. Maar als er zielige Syriërs hierheen komen, dan worden er wel woningen bijgebouwd. Niets ten nadele van Syriërs die vluchtten voor het westerse geweld aldaar, hoor
Wil je het woningtekort tegengaan? Houdt dan op met uchtelingen hierheen te lokken met gratis lekkers (kost en inwoning, ziekenzorg, …) en schrap tevens de kinderbijslag; maak liever het leven hier goedkoper voor iedereen. Vergelijk de boodschappenprijzen in bv Limburg maar eens met die in Duitsland, en je ziet hoe de hele bevolking arm wordt gehouden.

Don’t blame the Germans pt2

What I originally meant to say in my post https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/dont-blame-the-germans/ was that it was correct to not sue the Quandt family for any profits made by selling batteries for V2 rockets etc. to the nazis, or by selling uniforms to the imperial army a world war earlier.

These people were just trying to make a living under circumstances they had no influence upon.

Though:

It’s true that ruthless relentless legal pursuit of business owners like the Quandts (or those behind Boeing, Lockheed Martin,etc.) is the only way to prevent future wars by scaring them out of supporting the warmonger-regimes. It’s theonly way democratic regimes may be convinced to not thrust the entire nation’s economy & security onto the dumps by picking a war of choice (vanity wars, coz: “sending teenagers into the battlefields makes us look good & fearless”)

When a country has been defeated militarily, it is in a horrible state economically, so unless the people there are able to make a living they are doubly punished for something they had nothing to do with.

So, contrary to both invasions of Iraq, which commenced after only negligible planning, any time a regime feels the need to start a war, it must take into account what happens if the war goes as hoped (as well as when it doesn’t), and provide jobs for the citizens of the losing regime, to make room for prosecution of the warfunders.

This will not sit well with the domestic population of the victorious expeditionary army’s politicians, because the war is ruining their economy as well. (Don’t let talk of the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex fool you; perhaps a few industrialists profit, but the majority of the tax victims doesn’t) This means that the war just ought not to be started at all.

Another reason to not take it out on the industrialists is that regimes tend to steer the prevailing mood among the population to breaking point, to where a certain amount of people is foaming at the mouth with warlust. This warlust will affect the entire population to see to it that it’s considered a good thing to at least not hinder the war effort.