And why exactly is a proven medical treatment based on literal decades of research and having already gone through numerous clinical trials for treatments not just of covid, but for things like cancer etc, using rather straightforward existing cell mechanisms to simply make a single protein from the virus so your immune system can gain immunity just like it would if you injected the weakened virus itself, as traditional vaccines do.... how is that a crime against humanity?
Please explain.
How are people so stupid as to not understand the difference between "you're 90% less likely to get it" and "you're 0% less likely to get it"?
Which would you rather be? 90% safer, or 0%?
You may say that you don't think the virus is very dangerous and personally don't feel at high risk, which is fine, but you have to be literally retarded to not understand that "not perfect" is not the same as "entirely ineffective."
You're arguing that because they didn't use the exact variant of the spelling that you'd like them to have used, that the actual meaning of the word doesn't mean what it plainly does actually mean and has meant for around a century now.
It might be as simple as that they didn't like having two -ist suffixes in a row and allowed the latter to serve as the modifier for both. Regardless, it is what it is and OP was incorrect to equate a nationalist movement with a political party today whose ideology is far more akin to the globalists or international socialists, and who are openly anti-nationalist.
While the rest of these points you'd like to raise may be interesting, they're aside from the point that OP was entirely wrong in their assertion. I think OP just didn't know anything about National Socialism other than "bad" and "socialists" and thought it would be a persuasive argument against the Democrat party to call them Nazis.
The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism.
Read that as many times as it takes until you get it.
See if you can figure out the difference between recognizing the things they were right about while condemning the holocaust and intentions of lebensraum, and just "defending nazis" as you say.
If you have to call someone a liar because their plainly stated views don't fit the asinine straw man you're trying to cram them in, it would seem you've not only lost the argument, but also your dignity.
This sums it up. Thanks.
Apparently you're too stupid to comprehend that I said I'm not a Nazi and don't like Nazis. But because I didn't agree with OPs false statement about the definition of National Socialism, now you want to line me up against a wall and execute me.
Seems to me that you have far more in common with Hitler and Stalin than I do, friend.
Food for thought.
That's like saying Christians don't believe in Jesus because you can make up your own Christianity that doesn't believe in Jesus. It ignores one of the most core tenets of the philosophy and beliefs, a rather defining trait if you will, simply because you say you can change the meaning if you want, as though that negates the existing almost unanimous consensus belief and understanding of those who actually use that label to sincerely define themselves.
That's a little hyperbolic, to make the point, but not much really.
National socialism in its most basic form simply means socialism on a national basis.
That's where I think you're going off the rails in your reasoning. That's not the consensus definition. You're talking about small scale Socialism. That's just Socialism.
National Socialism isn't just referring to small scale socialism. It's socialism that rejects (International) Socialism, which is the main branch of socialism, and sets itself apart by explicitly stating that it is Nationalist in nature. Not internationalist.
The Austrians didn't like immigrants in their workplace, so they created a Nationalist brand of Socialism that would restrict it to their own national interests contrary to the parent strain of international socialism, hence clarifying their opposition to mainstream socialism by denoting it as specifically nationalist. The Germans were the same way. The Arabs were interested in advancing the interests of the Arabs specifically, not others, and thus wanted to group the Arab states together and create a Pan-Arab nationalist movement with socialism being a part of that framework. These are socialist movements specifically focused on rejecting the international aspects of (International) Socialism. Again, the reason for stating it in the name, because it's the exception to the rule. The rejection of the international aspect of mainstream socialism. The rejection of the global community in favor of one's own ethnic group or nation alone.
Again, not merely "we want to but can't", but specifically "we DON'T want to, hence putting it in the name. It's not any part of our goal. We reject that goal in favor of this other mutually exclusive one."
I think toward the end of your comment (you get a bit incoherent toward the end grammatically, but I think I follow what you're saying) you mistake what a Nation is.
A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture, and, in many cases, a shared territory. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group; it has been described as "a fully mobilized or institutionalized ethnic group". Some nations are equated with ethnic groups (see ethnic nationalism and nation state) and some are equated with an affiliation with a social and political constitution (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).
It is in this sense that National Socialism exists today in the more "Nazi" sense... the shared identity of whites more broadly, and those of Germanic heritage more specifically.
It is a bit like a diaspora identity and a desire to recreate a system that would act in the interests of that racial/ethnic group specifically, without regard to the interest of other groups, or even to the detriment of other groups. The point being that it doesn't inherently care about "the working class of the world". It cares about the German people or whites in general. The larger ethnic/racial group that it sees as its nation.
There are various other nations as well today, often without clearly defined borders... the "First Nations" here in the US for example.
This gets into philosophical issues like the difference between a NATION and a STATE, and how they combine to form Nation States, and concepts such as ETHNIC NATIONALISM etc.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to dig into those concepts. It's too much to get into in a comment here and it's past my bedtime. ;)
Not a Nazi and don't like Nazis. But I'm able to point out the errors and false claims being made by OP.
Apparently such critical thinking and being able to defend the accuracy of claims being made about a group you don't like, without actually liking that group or promoting that ideology, are concepts above your intellectual ability.
It's like how one might be able to argue in defense of abortion from a pro-choice person's perspective, without actually being pro-choice.... or how a pro-choice person (say, for example, an atheist) might be able to argue the pro-life person's perspective by hypothetically stating the premises of things like souls and life beginning at conception in that spiritual sense, and thus see any life being ended as being equivalent in that sense.
That doesn't mean the person has to agree with it entirely, or hold that as their own position, but they can understand why someone else would given certain other beliefs that serve as the basis for their worldview.
And some of those kinds of beliefs are SUBJECTIVE, not objective.
For example what do you value more: PERSONAL LIBERTY or the SOCIAL CONTRACT? And to what extent? How important is individual liberty to you? Where do you draw the line between your freedom and the good of the society in which you live?
Speed limits? Gun laws? Free speech? All of these things, even in the US, are related to those kinds of questions, balancing those subjective interests.
One might be able to argue in defense of another position one doesn't personally hold because they can understand the difference in subjective values between the people holding them... and might understand that in a sense they are all valid and that you can only try to persuade other people to change their subjective positions that might sway them toward a different conclusion... or make arguments like many often do claiming that the outcomes of a particular ideology are likely to be negative and thus we should prefer other options that we can argue would have better outcomes. (Even aside from the super obvious holocaust issue with the Nazis, or even the claims of Lebensraum including massacring the slavs etc...)
You might be able to actually understand the aspects of National Socialism that made it popular and turned Germany into the leading Industrial power in the world before WW2. You might be able to pick out those positive aspects while criticizing the aspects that led to the mass murder and destruction of so many lives. Much like you might do with something like a critique of Capitalism or Socialism and try to figure out which parts might actually be useful in order to maybe create an even better system by cutting out the bad and keeping the good.... much like the FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID when they rebelled against their ancestral homeland and ruler and took the best aspects of numerous other systems of law and government from around the world over thousands of years and created the greatest nation on Earth in the history of the world.
Again... maybe it's too hard for you not to see the world in childishly oversimplified black and white... and to see that things are rarely, if ever, 100% good or 100% bad.
First, I typed all this and then realized I can make the point more simply... so you can skip to the end of the comment for when I cut to "the chase."
I think the mistake many people make is that national socialism specifically refers to nationalism or is at the exclusion of international socialism.
First, to be clear, I didn't conflate national socialism with nationalism. Nor did I actually claim to be a supporter of national socialism (which I'm not.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_(disambiguation)
That page gives a nice list of a variety of National Socialist movements, some related to the Nazis, others not. Many predating the Nazi party and others still existing today that have never been related to the Nazis.
Looking through those makes it clear that a driving force is the goal of protecting and promoting the interests of a given ethnic group and/or the nation comprised of that group. This is in line with Nationalism itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty). It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements. It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism. Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).
As such, it's essentially Nationalism with a focus on a specific sodio-economic framework. Socialism instead of Capitalism. But the umbrella over it is a Nationalist one with Nationalist interests and focus rather than international interests and focus. The two actually are rather mutually exclusive.
You may argue that one MAY be a step toward the other, but in the case of the Nazi party and various others, they are rather explicitly not and seek to KEEP their country for their own people, restrict immigration, focus their efforts inward, respect national sovereignty (which is a hallmark of Nationalism, and which means also not being interested in spreading their ideology to other countries, as they believe countries have the right to rule themselves as their own people see fit... in contrast with the internationalist mentality which believes in things like world government, global revolutionary movements, trying to promote change in other countries to join their movement, etc.)
Again, Democrats aren't national socialists. They do not have Nationalist ideals, nor have any interest in things like national sovereignty, closed borders, etc... they are very gloabalist, internationalist, open borders, hate this country, see it as evil and in need of being torn down and rebuilt as part of a global order, with open borders, whites driven further into minority status, etc.
The only thing Democrats have in common with National Socialists is the Socialism part. They're anti-Nationalist. They're international Socialists.
I wouldn't say they're terribly interested in Communism though as they definitely love having their own property and wealth, love having government exist and be a part of it to control other people's lives etc. They do it for power and to virtue signal and don't ever imagine themselves being the ones to be lined up against the wall should the revolution actually ever succeed.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100007864
Let me try to put it another way...
International Socialism wants to share resources on a global scale... to create a global scale collective.
National Socialism cares specifically about its own Nation or Ethnic group (such as in the Arabs wanting to create a Pan-Arab single entity under it's National Socialism, or the Germans wanting to unite with Austria etc and reunite all the ethnic German people in one nation again.) But their concern is specifically in contrast to the global human collective, and specifically focuses on its own nation contrary to the global collective. National socialism is implicitly contradictory to international socialism, as even state level socialism is not national socialism if its concerns are still on a global scale or with the desire for such a global spread to other nations and peoples. The moment your concerns start moving outward to the world, you are no longer National Socialist. You're just Socialist.
It's not just "oh we're not there yet, or we can't do the whole world yet but we'd like to."
It's "I only care about my own people and the ability of my own people to work for the betterment of our own ethnic group. Our nation will cooperate internally to achieve the goals that we, as a special people, are uniquely capable of, and to preserve our culture, traditions, posterity, history, language, beliefs, etc... and do not care what other sovereign nations or people do."
It rejects the global collective outright in favor of focus on one's own people and nation. It DOESN'T WANT to promote a global collective, because the global collective is CONTRARY TO its interests. It might think all nations adopting National Socialism would be good, but it doesn't advocate it and doesn't want "workers of the world uniting" etc. It wants each nation to do whatever is best for that nation, and it only wants its own people to care about its own people.
And how well is Germany doing today by going against the Nazi notion of Germany for Germans and opening their borders to millions of migrants?
Hrm? Please answer honestly. Would they be better off with a Germany for Germans, or a Germany full of Islamists raping their women, running over their children and spouses... increasing loss of freedom, safety, social cohesion and trust, etc?
Compare that to Poland, who chose not to allow the migrants to flood in and has focused on protecting Poland for Poles.
Who is safer, happier, more cohesive today as a country?
Now tell me again why you hate the idea of protecting your own nation and ethnic group?
I'm all ears so to speak.
Tell me, do you think anyone would find your "argument" persuasive who doesn't already agree with you?
Kinda really depends on what you mean by "Patriot" now doesn't it?
For as much as some of the censorship here is for leftists pussies, the rules do exist. (And not nearly as bad as Reddit, but still clearly inferior to Gab.)
People should get on Gab and not this sycophantic Trump cock sucking site if Free Speech is a serious issue for them... and I say that as a Trump supporter.
This site has Trump's same kind of poor judgment about a lot of things (a lot of the people he promotes or welcomes into his cabinet or appoints to key positions etc), and then adds censorship on top of that to avoid offending certain people in order to make itself more marketable. Effeminate leftist traits of wanting to put "big tent harmony" ahead of "free speech and valid criticism" etc. Same shit lots of other groups have done in the past 15 years under leftist pressure to be more welcoming and less offensive to women and other minority groups etc.
Again, if some "Nazi" here promotes racist arguments, then they're violating the rules and that's that. If one cares about Free Speech, this isn't the hill to fight that battle on.
Gab is. Follow your convictions.
Let's address this, shall we? :)
patriotism NOUN the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country. "a highly decorated officer of unquestionable integrity and patriotism"
So, based on that definition, let's consider what "one's country" means.
Q) Who was this country created for?
A) Whites of good character, as a means of preserving the people, history, culture, and values of Europe by creating a new system of government that would better protect the liberties of that specific group. A group literally spelled out explicitly, repeatedly, in law and in the debates around the creation of this system of government and law, and which was preserved as such for almost 200 years until finally changed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which finally removed the race and country based restrictions meant to maintain the WHITE EUROPEAN racial and ethnic makeup of this nation which had successfully maintained the white European supermajority for almost TWO CENTURIES.
The proponents of the Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson said it was "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions." Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix. However, following the passage of the law, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed, altering the ethnic makeup of the U.S. with increased numbers of immigrants from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the West Indies.
Following this dramatic betrayal of the American people and this nation that had been created for those of European heritage, the share of non-hispanic White Americans plummeted from a long term ~90% supermajority to the ~60% it's at today, and is projected by the Census Bureau to have whites as a MINORITY IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY within a single generation, by around 2042.
(Also see "The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790 ) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free white person[s] ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states.")
The idea that this country was created as a "melting pot" to take in the human refuse of the world, to act as a global nanny, to take the wealth of the American people and dump it into third world shit holes while opening our doors wide open and welcoming them all to come here and live off our hard work and ruin our communities with their low intelligence, crime, rape, violence, murder, etc... degrading the greatest country on Earth that our ancestors built and defended for us...
(And also note that "Birthright Citizenship" also violates the Constitution and those founding principles as well and is limited specifically to the children of citizens and legal residents etc... not to anyone who manages to somehow step foot on our soil. But that's yet another issue that true patriots care about that idiots don't.)
It is quite easy to say that YOU in fact are the unpatriotic one... the one that hates what this country actually was created to be... the one who is the globalists who wants to get rid of our borders, to lie about why this country was created and what its borders were meant to do... the one who wishes to see the American people and way of life erased and replaced with inferior foreign peoples, values, beliefs, and goals for what THEY want this country to become both in blood and spirit.
So spare me your ignorant and demonstrably wrong idiocy and whining about "Nazis" being "globalists" and that somehow they cannot be "patriotic."
It's a matter of understanding history and being able to make a reasonable argument based on actual facts rather than the intellectually bankrupt cognitive train-wreck you just shat on us like explosive diarrhea through your keyboard.
You're free to criticize Nazis for valid reasons. But don't spout off the dumb shit you just did and expect to be taken seriously. There were a number of things the Nazis were right about then, and a number of things various White Nationalists or Neo-Nazis are right about today despite having other things wrong. So if we're going to criticize them, do it from a historically informed and soundly reasoned position, not the really really dumb shit you're spouting.
The LITERAL NAME of the ideology proves you wrong.
They were NATIONAL socialists whose primary argument with the Communists was that the commies were INTERNATIONAL socialists.
The whole point was that the Nazis wanted to protect and enforce German borders, act only for the sake of the German people, etc. Any expansion of their territory they specifically did for the sake of "Lebensraum" or "Living Space" for their people, and the existing people would either be liquidated or used as labor for the German people etc.
They were the polar opposite of the INTERNATIONAL socialists who wanted open borders, a global revolution, and had zero concerns about national identity and ethnic groups... for them it was all about class, the workers vs the capitalists, and of a global concern for "working people" everywhere etc.
The German's didn't give a shit about you unless you were German, or a threat to Germans, or had some resource they wanted to take from you FOR Germans.
False. They are specifically INTERnational socialists. They want OPEN BORDERS and believe that globalism helps out the rest of the world's people even if it harms "our own" (a concept they hate.)
I don't see why this is hard for people to understand. It was the core argument between the Nazis (actual National Socialists) and the Communists (INTERnational Socialists).
Nazis are globalist socialists, who else is a socialist? The democrats.
Umm... you realize your premise is 100% false, right?
The LITERAL NAME is NATIONAL socialists. Their primary argument with the Communists was over the difference between NATIONAL socialism and INTERNATIONAL (globalist) socialism.
You can argue that they are socialists, but seriously... do a little reading so that you don't literally contradict the very name of the ideology and one of its core premises.
If I had to choose between the Democrats and the Nazis, I'd pick the Nazis. That doesn't mean I like socialists or communism etc. It means that if I have to choose between a socialism that wants to erase white people, have open borders, and celebrate and reward degeneracy.... or one that protects its borders, acts in the interest of its own ethnic group, and outlaws degeneracy, then the "lesser evil" couldn't be more obvious.
I suppose you could argue that people who actually value Free Speech should be over on Gab anyway... so whatever... go ahead and call for censorship like a left wing bitch. But hey, at least get your facts straight when you do so.
OP is lying. Read their "source" for yourself. It supports the mainstream narrative and says nothing at all to support OPs claim.
You're correct. OP is lying. His "source" confirms they're lying and says nothing at all to support their claim about eggs.
There is nothing whatsoever in that article about eggs. It only confirms that you're lying. He was protesting in support of civil rights and integration.
You don't have to like it, but don't lie.
The reality is that the most effective solution to gun violence in this country is confronting black violence. Not gun violence.
False dilemma. It's all of those things and more.
First, yes, it did go through multiple phases of clinical trials, enough to justify its use in what was considered, rightly or wrongly, the current crisis. Ideally as with most other vaccines, it would have gone through several more years of expanding clinical trials before full public release. You can criticize that for valid reasons, but you can't sit and pretend that those trials simply never happened, or weren't based on years of research on similar vaccines, or literally decades of research on mRNA vaccines in general, etc.
As for the animal testing you refer to... when was that? Credible sources please. Because I've looked at the clinical trials for recent vaccines for flu, covid, cancer, etc... over the past almost 10 years now, and seen glowing results.
I keep seeing this claim of animals dying, but without sources or context. So please provide them to backup your claim that is contrary to the actual recent multiple phases of clinical trials on top of lab testing etc.
Further, you do realize that some "traditional" vaccines also require booster shots, right? Tetanus being a prime example for one that simply fades over time, but others require new vaccines on a regular basis due to high mutation rates, like the flu.
You're making bold claims and I'd like you to provide some evidence to back them up if you expect to persuade any reasonable person that what you're saying is correct and we should change our position.
Thanks.