SOOOO … the problem with German aggression in the '30s and '40s was … um
They’re not hiring their best.
It’s a bit like when some white people hear about “racism” they start worrying about “reverse racism”;
and when Trump hears about “sexual harassment” he starts complaining about “presidential harassment”;
when the pre-Nazis heard people organizing meetings about “International Socialism” they came up with a riposte name for their party, “National Socialism”…
That’s right, in addition to the genocide, they were dicks who thought they were being cute.
Well, more to the point, fission bombs were invented by two German physicists who left to live in the UK because Jews were under threat in Germany. Hitler rejected fission bomb development because he didn’t trust his own physicists, because so many of them were Jews.
And in the end, uranium fission ended the second world war in favor of the side which developed it.
Turning Point can’t seem to agree on what Hitler’s problem was: Stop or keep going?
eta: Not Turning Point, just an honored guest.
So, leave the bunker and fight the advancing troops with a pistol?
Using Hitler and the gang as a figurehead in this scenario…
I think it’s even more insidious and nuanced than that — some people are just drawn to bad things, and are so self-absorbed they lack any ability to contextualize the nasty shit they are involved with. Nastiness knows no racial bounds. And nasty people will typically do whatever it takes to advance their own personal agenda — even if that agenda is, at its core, self destructive. And this is what it really comes down to IMHO — there is an awful karmic pattern where people engage in nasty behavior that is both self and externally destructive, but they are wired to do it anyway, because it makes them feel better in the moment (typically NOT long term, from what I’ve seen).
Ah… the human condition.
This moniker now makes me imagine a fever-dream Turning Point USA version of Coachella to get the kids on board. Set in Ohio, headliners like Hitler and the Gang, and vendors selling Nino Asado.
I know how nino is spelled, I just can’t do accent marks on my tablet.
Almost. Except for two things that seem to complicate that take.
- On our side, the development of the bomb probably only sped up the end. It made things immediately clear, but it didn’t “win” an otherwise-lost war.
- On their side, if the nazis had held on to fission scientists, they probably wouldn’t have had the space and unbarraged attention to develop that bomb, because they didn’t have an ally separate enough from the frontline to have their own Manhattan Project.
This is speculative, of course. It’s a lot of what ifs. But it’s true that there were many things (in addition to the bomb) that influenced the overall outcome of the war, as it really happened.
What isn’t speculative is that Hitler used calls for “Nationalism” to get people to kill each other, and that Candace Owens and Turning Point are straight-up garbage.
How can Turning Point USA be “anti-globalism” while sending a representative to a foreign country to bolster their interests?
That sounds like a racist knock-off version of Kool & the Gang, only their music sucks even worse than their politics.
Because he’s a fucking soulless asshole that would have been easily labelled a Quisling if he’d lived in Europe during WW2. He doesn’t really care about other Jews unless they’re family; why do you think he fits so neatly into working with his father-in-law?
which, if i understand my history, is simply a-historic.
it’s an area defined by whatever the romans conquered, a bunch of city states, some bits of which broke from the catholic church. an explicitly german empire based on a language, but a language that came to predominante because of all the above politics - an empire that only formed at the end of the nineteenth century, a bunch of wars where folks tried to pound out country borders, wars which included ww1 and ww2.
there never was a “german” people let alone a “german” race. not so far as i understand it.
I am speechless at the level of stupidity here. Actually this goes far beyond stupidity into malignant evil.
This woman understands the word socialist in the National social party of the Nazis in the same way she must believe the dprk is actually democratic.
Look I’m not even going to hold back here- someone this stupid and this powerful of an international mouthpiece needs to be knocked the fuck out the second they say any of this in front of a podium, quickly followed by International condemnation of their words and an extremely articulate rebuttal of exactly why they are this fucking stupid and therefore evil.
A reporter on NPR yesterday mentioned almost not being able to be shocked anymore. I would normally agree but this is still shocking which shows just how low the basement is plumbed in America now
The question then becomes whether he would have had the support without the hate.
It’s because he is a crook raised by a crook to be a crook.
I have slight mixed feelings about the bb article title.
I know I am wading into deep waters as:
- I’ve seen Xeni strongly defend bb’s editorial voice on other occasions
- I agree with the spirit of the criticism she’s making
- I am disgusted by facts of the story
The globalism clause of the speaker’s statement is an obvious falsehood. Hitler’s concept of “Lebensraum” was in pursuit of easterly expansion in targeted areas of Europe and Russia with valuable natural resources. He felt the German people deserved these lands. All of his other adventures from Africa to Norway were gambits to try and increase his odds of success in claiming his coveted territories. For example he only had interest in France, England and the U.S. insofar as he expected them to interfere with his plan and wanted to either keep them from entering the conflict or beat them decisively early on (so he could focus unhindered on his real goal). Similarly, alliances with Japan and Italy (and for a time, Russia) were about holding France, Britain and China off balance for as long as possible. Japan’s attack on the U.S. was certainly not part of Hitler’s calculation and unraveled a significant portion of his strategy.
So Hitler was never a globalist, and this attempt to rewrite his story should be ignored.
However, the “make Germany great” comment is tucked inside a predicate for the globalism assertion. This is a crafty sleight of hand as it makes the idea in the middle super hard to quote. Do you begin and end the statement with ellipses? Do you quote the “If” and then argue about the rhetorical device.
What I feel like the headline does is call a spade a spade, but in a literal sense, it accomplishes this by slightly misquoting the speaker. Do the single quotes mean “extremely close paraphrase” here?
I have loved bOINGbOING for decades, so I’m not trying to attack anyone, but I also think it’s an interesting question when dealing with liars: how do you cut through the rhetorical bs without getting snared in their traps?
Perhaps essential to Ms. Owens’ point is Hitler’s perspective, where he probably would argue he was just trying to make Germany great again (in particular by undoing the perceived injustice of the Treaty of Versailles). Maybe she believes this part of what she’s saying?