"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
...
Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:04, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 07:16, harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/g...c-state-attack




Harry still trying to spread the word of the criminal and racist right
wing. The author of this one, American loony Robert Spencer, due to
speak at an English Defence League march was banned from entering the
UK
by Teresa May. And still is.

To right wing even for the right wing? Get out of here with your
extremist crap Harry.

TW
Harry isn't extremist. You should get out more. There's a lot weirder
opinions than that out there.

Neither is he particularly right wing. Indeed extremist right wing is
largely an invention of the left


To challenge the view that all change is for the better, is to be
labelled as extremist right wing, these days.

Most left wing seem to forget that Hitler was a socialist.

Seems like a strange mixture of left and right to me. National Socialist
German Workers Party sounds contradictory, since I think socialism is
supposed to promote internationalism.

No it's not. Socialism is the state doing what
would otherwise be done by other than the state.

And ALL countrys have a mix of socialism and capitalism,
even HongKong before it was handed back to China,
most obvious with the govt schools and cops etc.
It even had some minimal welfare too.

Britain has much more socialism than
HK did, most obviously with the NHS.

He did at least admit that he intended to end democracy, though,

He didnt actually. And democracy has
nothing to do with socialism either.

and I think that socialism can only be fully implemented if people do not
have the chance to vote against it.

Its never fully implemented. That isnt even possible.
It is never possible to have the govt do everything,
most obviously with the ****ing that produces children.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2016 12:37, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:04, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 07:16, harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/g...c-state-attack





Harry still trying to spread the word of the criminal and racist right
wing. The author of this one, American loony Robert Spencer, due to
speak at an English Defence League march was banned from entering
the UK
by Teresa May. And still is.

To right wing even for the right wing? Get out of here with your
extremist crap Harry.

TW
Harry isn't extremist. You should get out more. There's a lot weirder
opinions than that out there.

Neither is he particularly right wing. Indeed extremist right wing is
largely an invention of the left


To challenge the view that all change is for the better, is to be
labelled as extremist right wing, these days.

Most left wing seem to forget that Hitler was a socialist.

Seems like a strange mixture of left and right to me. National
Socialist German Workers Party sounds contradictory, since I think
socialism is supposed to promote internationalism. He did at least
admit that he intended to end democracy, though, and I think that
socialism can only be fully implemented if people do not have the chance
to vote against it.

The difference between communism and fascism is that under fascism you
would be expected to be rewarded by how hard you work.

That utterly mangles the real story.

Otherwise I can't see any difference.

Then you need new glasses, BAD.

One obvious difference is that the
military isnt the state with communism.

Both promote an authoritarian state.

As you rightly say that is hardly a current socialist philosophy where
your reward should be independent on how hard you work.

That isnt what socialism is about.

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:04, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 07:16, harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/g...c-state-attack



Harry still trying to spread the word of the criminal and racist right
wing. The author of this one, American loony Robert Spencer, due to
speak at an English Defence League march was banned from entering the
UK
by Teresa May. And still is.

To right wing even for the right wing? Get out of here with your
extremist crap Harry.

TW
Harry isn't extremist. You should get out more. There's a lot weirder
opinions than that out there.

Neither is he particularly right wing. Indeed extremist right wing is
largely an invention of the left


To challenge the view that all change is for the better, is to be
labelled as extremist right wing, these days.

Most left wing seem to forget that Hitler was a socialist.

Don't forget North Korea too. And lots of African republics. If someone
calls themselves a socialist or their country one, it must be so. Just
like democratic.

After all, Turnip calls himself a Philosopher. I rest my case.

I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand what
people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

Not really. They could see that everyone else had ****ed things
up very comprehensively indeed, that the country was in very
deep **** indeed economically and enough of them decided
that he wasn't likely to be any worse and might do better to
end up with enough of his party in the Reichstag.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist,

And he clearly was that with lots of his policy stuff
like the autobahns and doing what FDR did in the
US, massive deficit spending which got both
economys out of the Great Depression.

Adolf's problem was that there was no way to pay
for that and so the only way he could do anything
about that was to engage in military adventurism.

Even that worked a hell of a lot better than anyone
else had managed before him in his country.

His problem is that it all came completely unstuck eventually.

as least as far as native Germans were concerned.

It wasn't just native germans, it was also austrians etc too.

Less so when it came to his plans for the disabled.

Not just the disabled, all untermensh etc too.

People didn't seem to be so keen to distance themselves from his ideas
then.

Because they were working very well indeed.
It was only later that the **** hit the fan with
them and by that time it was too late.

But cleverer people than me seem still unable to understand what happened

Plenty do.

- I don't think I really have much of a chance, try as I might :-)

True.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2016 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Fredxxx
wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:04, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 07:16, harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/g...c-state-attack






Harry still trying to spread the word of the criminal and racist right
wing. The author of this one, American loony Robert Spencer,
due to speak at an English Defence League march was banned
from entering the UK by Teresa May. And still is.

To right wing even for the right wing? Get out of here with
your extremist crap Harry.

TW
Harry isn't extremist. You should get out more. There's a lot
weirder opinions than that out there.

Neither is he particularly right wing. Indeed extremist right
wing is largely an invention of the left


To challenge the view that all change is for the better, is to
be labelled as extremist right wing, these days.

Most left wing seem to forget that Hitler was a socialist.

Don't forget North Korea too. And lots of African republics. If
someone calls themselves a socialist or their country one, it must
be so. Just like democratic.

After all, Turnip calls himself a Philosopher. I rest my case.


I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

That is quite easy. The Great Depression started in 1929 and continued
for most countries until the late 30's.

There were no state benefits payable to anyone who was out of work.

That wasn’t true of Germany or the USA either.

We have also conveniently forgotten who invented and ran the banking
system.

You clearly don’t know who did that.

They were vilified in much the same way bankers are today for the 2007/8
bank bailouts.

'they' were vilified long before the Great Depression.

People lost their life saving and the blame
was firmly placed on bankers at that time.

Not in Germany, it was firmly placed on the
allies that applied draconian reparations.

In those days bankers were not a protected characteristic.

Hitler had various socialist policies.

And other policys like Keynesian deficit spending too.

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only labours
were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

If Corbyn adopted those policies, who knows!

On top of that Hitler spent his way out any economic disaster,

Just like FDR did in the US.

the opposite of austerity

Yes, he wasn’t that stupid.

and used the resource to arm Germany.

And do a hell of a lot more than just that too.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist, as least
as far as native Germans were concerned.

He was very much a socialist

Yes.

and was voted in on that basis.

Nope. He wasn’t in fact ever voted in. He never had a majority
in the Reichstag and there was never a vote for Chancellor.
Hindenburg APPOINTED him Chancellor.

On Friday, 9 September 2016 23:44:18 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 20:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 20:27, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 20:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]
Once you decide that
Jews/Capitalists/toffs/abortionists/fascists/infidels/members of
UKIP/people with 4WD cars are 'scum', herding them into death camps
becomes the moral thing to do.


Refugee camps, immigrant camps, Calais for example, once you decide that
they are child molesters, scroungers and terrorists ... Our
grandchildren will wonder how we could be so complacent.


There are no guards keeping them there.
No one forced them to be there.
They are free to go to somewhere else.

Sure, these people have all kinds of options, like er, let me think,
...actually none.

Claim asylum in France?
Go home?

They must realise we don't want them.
Why are they still hanging about?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's. I'm sure he considered
himself to be something of a socialist, as least as far as native
Germans were concerned. Less so when it came to his plans for the
disabled. People didn't seem to be so keen to distance themselves from
his ideas then. But cleverer people than me seem still unable to
understand what happened - I don't think I really have much of a chance,
try as I might

Most people regarded Hitler as a lot better alternative than Communism
or Bolshevism, which had destroyed Russia and its ruling class.

At that time Communism was seen as part of 'the Jewish conspiracy' to
foment dissent and wars and make profits out of it. Anti-Semitism was
pretty rife, not helped by the clannishness ghetto-isation and refusal
to integrate of the European Jewish communities.

The problem with that is that Germany was arguably one of the most
integrated Jewish communities.

It was only when he developed delusions of Empire, invading his
neighbours, that people got upset.

They were very happy to see him and Mussolini trounce the commies in
Spain and Italy.

It was a pair of Italian communists that drew up the EU manifesto of course.

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

Anyway, the point is simply this. More than a few people were more or
less anti semitic - suspicious and distrustful of Jews, and so that part
of Nazism wasn't seen as more than just a bit politically extreme. The
Anti- Bolshevik sentiment was widely applauded, as was the patriotism
and nationalism. Only when various political figures started getting
murdered, and other countries started getting invaded did people begin
to wonder, and then of course it was too late.

I don't think you can get close to understanding the whole thing unless
you spend time reading the causal literature of the time, and forming
your own opinions on the attitudes and ideas of the people then, rather
than taking the view of some historian - who perforce must needs
introduce a 'new perspective that informs' in order to make his career.

I can fully understand why people supported Hitler. And why people
support Corbyn.

And why Lefty****s are ****s.

I don't excuse it though.

On 09/09/16 23:44, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 20:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 20:27, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 20:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[...]
Once you decide that
Jews/Capitalists/toffs/abortionists/fascists/infidels/members of
UKIP/people with 4WD cars are 'scum', herding them into death camps
becomes the moral thing to do.


Refugee camps, immigrant camps, Calais for example, once you decide that
they are child molesters, scroungers and terrorists ... Our
grandchildren will wonder how we could be so complacent.


There are no guards keeping them there.
No one forced them to be there.
They are free to go to somewhere else.

Sure, these people have all kinds of options, like er, let me think,
....actually none.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 09/09/2016 14:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 14:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
The difference between communism and fascism is that under fascism you
would be expected to be rewarded by how hard you work.

Can you name any communist state where all are/were equal?

You simply can't have it both ways.

When did I say I could?

You were quoting some supposed difference between fascism and communism.
As if they defined them.

I never said that any ideal could ever be put into practice. In some
respects fascism is more honest as you rightly imply that under
communism, as per George Orwell, some are more equal than others.

Chip on shoulder comes to mind.

Excuse me for expecting an understanding of principles on here. I should
know better by now.

My apologies, just that I never tried to imply that in any communist
state anyone was equal. Perhaps we should rename them fascists' states
after all?

On 10/09/2016 07:28, Rod Speed wrote:

snip

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers' Party
manifesto Hitler was elected on.

On 09/09/2016 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 19:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 2:44 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 12:32, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 10:12 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I see the state education system has let you down again. and you are
unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being half way
down, or being halfway down and moving further...
....

Did that actually make sense to you when you wrote it?


yes, and it still does.

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

I think it has let many down.

It does seem strange when someone points out an undeniable fact, that
can only be a result of the education system.

Are you suggesting the education system should teach people to ignore
simple facts involving police and armed forces?

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

No, I am suggest8ing nothing of te kind.

I am suggesting that anyone who cannot understand the following :

"you are unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being
half way down, or being halfway down and moving further..."

Has an inadequate grasp of English, due to the state education system
having abandoned English grammar and comprehension as a subject deemed
worth studying.

You misunderstand. I wasn't questioning whether that was an intelligible
composition of words. I was asking whether it made sense to you to write
that as a response to my post. I was simply pointing out that Britain,
and many other countries, have been carrying out inter-service
cooperation exercises for decades without anybody claiming we were
coming under martial law. Your response seems to be completely unrelated
to that.


thats because you are stupid, or deliberetaly trolling

I pointed out that 'descending into' something is not the same as being
there already.

I agree the article mentioned the cooperation of the police and armed
forces and called it martial law.

You have to be pretty thick not to notice that the police do work with
the armed forces from time to time.

If you call any working between police and the armed forces martial law,
then the UK has been subject to martial law for a long time.

The troll here is the one seeming to think that the police and armed
forces never work together.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest
should not be charged, and that there should be no
return on capital; where only labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist
German Workers' Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 9 September 2016 10:04:31 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
On 09/09/16 07:16, harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/g...c-state-attack

Harry still trying to spread the word of the criminal and racist right
wing. The author of this one, American loony Robert Spencer, due to
speak at an English Defence League march was banned from entering the UK
by Teresa May. And still is.

To right wing even for the right wing? Get out of here with your
extremist crap Harry.

They are jusT reporting the news as appears in other sources.

They are in fact being VERY selective about reporting
JUST the lies in other sources that suits them.

In this case NBC.
The link is there for you to verify.

Nothing to verify except that someone spewed that lie.

Brian Gaff wrote

Has he finally flipped.

He flipped LONG ago, that's why even the NHS gave him the bums rush.

Maybe he needs a good hobby?

He's got one, being a FIT parasite.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Nope, it is doing nothing of the sort, bigot boy.

harry wrote

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/g...c-state-attack

On 10/09/2016 10:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see, so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

On 10/09/16 11:05, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/09/2016 10:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see, so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

Who knows. Obviously you can provide a link to the manifesto he was
'elected on' can't you?


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's. I'm sure he considered
himself to be something of a socialist, as least as far as native
Germans were concerned. Less so when it came to his plans for the
disabled. People didn't seem to be so keen to distance themselves from
his ideas then. But cleverer people than me seem still unable to
understand what happened - I don't think I really have much of a chance,
try as I might

Most people regarded Hitler as a lot better alternative than Communism
or Bolshevism, which had destroyed Russia and its ruling class.

At that time Communism was seen as part of 'the Jewish conspiracy' to
foment dissent and wars and make profits out of it. Anti-Semitism was
pretty rife, not helped by the clannishness ghetto-isation and refusal
to integrate of the European Jewish communities.

It was only when he developed delusions of Empire, invading his
neighbours, that people got upset.

They were very happy to see him and Mussolini trounce the commies in
Spain and Italy.

It was a pair of Italian communists that drew up the EU manifesto of
course.

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

Anyway, the point is simply this. More than a few people were more or
less anti semitic - suspicious and distrustful of Jews, and so that part
of Nazism wasn't seen as more than just a bit politically extreme. The
Anti- Bolshevik sentiment was widely applauded, as was the patriotism
and nationalism. Only when various political figures started getting
murdered, and other countries started getting invaded did people begin
to wonder, and then of course it was too late.

I don't think you can get close to understanding the whole thing unless
you spend time reading the causal literature of the time, and forming
your own opinions on the attitudes and ideas of the people then, rather
than taking the view of some historian - who perforce must needs
introduce a 'new perspective that informs' in order to make his career.

I can fully understand why people supported Hitler. And why people
support Corbyn.

And why Lefty****s are ****s.

I don't excuse it though.


I thank you and Fredxxx for your responses. I could talk about this sort
of stuff all day, but I don't think usenet is a great way to deal with it.

You've clearly both studied more than me, yet I still maintain that /for
most people/, Hitler's success is something of a mystery. The very
mention of the name is too loaded for people to not believe that he
tricked his way into power. Yet it is clear that he did not. One only
has to watch Eva Braun's home movies at Berchtesgarten to see that that
these are people who do not believe that they are in any way evil.

Neither did Eichmann or Himmler and they were anyway.

I think it's worth mentioning the paralysis induced by Germany's system of
proportional representation as a major factor.

Yes, that was certainly the reason why there was no majority govt
and why Hindenburg chose to appoint Hitler Chancellor.

There was one NSDAP founding member (whose name I can't remember)

Strasser.

who, when asked what they stand for, simply said 'the opposite of what
there is today'.

And that is a pretty succinct statement of what the NSDAP was about.

I think many people feel that right now, especially in the US.

I'm not convinced that it all that many today.

The hyperinflation of 1923 has been mentioned, but this was got under
control when required

That is a separate matter to why some certainly did support Hitler.

(I think it was allowed to run away in order to obfuscate the value of the
currency at a time when they were paying reparations),

Yes.

and I'd be surprised if it was still a motivating political factor ten
years later.

It clearly was.

The Great Depression, OTOH, certainly was.

As for the anti-semitism, I think I read that even Jesse Owens was a
last-minute stand-in for a Jewish athlete whom the Americans chose not to
send for fear of upsetting Hitler. It's also odd that previously,
Germany was something of a haven for Europe's Jews.

It was indeed.

But I don't know. Before WW2, there seem to be no great surprises in what
happened. Afterwards, it seems hardly credible. Anyway, I'm wittering
now :-)

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should
not be charged, and that there should be no return on
capital; where only labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist
German Workers' Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Neither. I read it before were even born
and know you lied thru your ****ing teeth.

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see,

Nope, you never do.

so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

He was never elected chancellor. He was
APPOINTED chancellor by Hindenburg.

On 10-Sep-16 10:28 AM, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I pointed out that 'descending into' something is not the same as being
there already.

I agree the article mentioned the cooperation of the police and armed
forces and called it martial law.

You have to be pretty thick not to notice that the police do work with
the armed forces from time to time.

If you call any working between police and the armed forces martial law,
then the UK has been subject to martial law for a long time...

That, of course, is exactly the point I was making.

In fact, we have gone a lot further than simply carrying out
inter-service cooperation exercises. The longest continuous deployment
in the history of the British Army, Operation Banner, started in August
1969, with troops being called in to quell riots in Derry and Belfast.
We had troops on UK streets for the best part of the next 40 years.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 10/09/16 07:52, harry wrote:


Claim asylum in France?
Go home?

They must realise we don't want them.
Why are they still hanging about?

It is bound to be confusing and incomprehensible for you because you
have made so many false assumptions.

TW

On 10/09/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/16 11:05, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/09/2016 10:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see, so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

Who knows. Obviously you can provide a link to the manifesto he was
'elected on' can't you?

I respect your quite reasonable question rather than Rod's pathetic
denial there wasn't a manifesto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ialist_Program
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP

Regarding living off unearned income.
Point 11:
"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery."

Its now ironic that in the UK unearned income is taxed less heavily!

On Saturday, 10 September 2016 10:28:37 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 19:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 2:44 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 12:32, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 10:12 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I see the state education system has let you down again. and you are
unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being half way
down, or being halfway down and moving further...
....

Did that actually make sense to you when you wrote it?


yes, and it still does.

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

I think it has let many down.

It does seem strange when someone points out an undeniable fact, that
can only be a result of the education system.

Are you suggesting the education system should teach people to ignore
simple facts involving police and armed forces?

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

No, I am suggest8ing nothing of te kind.

I am suggesting that anyone who cannot understand the following :

"you are unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being
half way down, or being halfway down and moving further..."

Has an inadequate grasp of English, due to the state education system
having abandoned English grammar and comprehension as a subject deemed
worth studying.

You misunderstand. I wasn't questioning whether that was an intelligible
composition of words. I was asking whether it made sense to you to write
that as a response to my post. I was simply pointing out that Britain,
and many other countries, have been carrying out inter-service
cooperation exercises for decades without anybody claiming we were
coming under martial law. Your response seems to be completely unrelated
to that.


thats because you are stupid, or deliberetaly trolling

I pointed out that 'descending into' something is not the same as being
there already.

I agree the article mentioned the cooperation of the police and armed
forces and called it martial law.

You have to be pretty thick not to notice that the police do work with
the armed forces from time to time.

If you call any working between police and the armed forces martial law,
then the UK has been subject to martial law for a long time.

The troll here is the one seeming to think that the police and armed
forces never work together.

When the armed forces are patrolling the streets, it is de facto martial law.

On 10/09/2016 19:12, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 10 September 2016 10:28:37 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 19:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 2:44 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 12:32, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 10:12 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I see the state education system has let you down again. and you are
unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being half way
down, or being halfway down and moving further...
....

Did that actually make sense to you when you wrote it?


yes, and it still does.

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

I think it has let many down.

It does seem strange when someone points out an undeniable fact, that
can only be a result of the education system.

Are you suggesting the education system should teach people to ignore
simple facts involving police and armed forces?

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

No, I am suggest8ing nothing of te kind.

I am suggesting that anyone who cannot understand the following :

"you are unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being
half way down, or being halfway down and moving further..."

Has an inadequate grasp of English, due to the state education system
having abandoned English grammar and comprehension as a subject deemed
worth studying.

You misunderstand. I wasn't questioning whether that was an intelligible
composition of words. I was asking whether it made sense to you to write
that as a response to my post. I was simply pointing out that Britain,
and many other countries, have been carrying out inter-service
cooperation exercises for decades without anybody claiming we were
coming under martial law. Your response seems to be completely unrelated
to that.


thats because you are stupid, or deliberetaly trolling

I pointed out that 'descending into' something is not the same as being
there already.

I agree the article mentioned the cooperation of the police and armed
forces and called it martial law.

You have to be pretty thick not to notice that the police do work with
the armed forces from time to time.

If you call any working between police and the armed forces martial law,
then the UK has been subject to martial law for a long time.

The troll here is the one seeming to think that the police and armed
forces never work together.

When the armed forces are patrolling the streets, it is de facto martial law.

While I might agree with that definition, the term wasn't used when the
army was patrolling the streets of NI?

On Friday, 9 September 2016 17:47:19 UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
On 09/09/2016 07:16, harry wrote:
https://www.jihadwatch.o

LOL.
A website called jihadwatch ! not even worthy of a click-through!

Only if you're totally brainwashed would you not look.

On 10/09/2016 19:12, harry wrote:


When the armed forces are patrolling the streets, it is de facto martial law.



err no.
when military law supersedes civil and criminal law then its martial law.
Northern Ireland was not under martial law when the troops were patrolling.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/16 11:05, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/09/2016 10:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see, so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

Who knows. Obviously you can provide a link to the manifesto he was
'elected on' can't you?

I respect your quite reasonable question rather than Rod's pathetic denial
there wasn't a manifesto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ialist_Program
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP

Regarding living off unearned income.
Point 11:
"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery."

That is nothing even remotely like your **** right at the tope.

The first one is talking about those who dont
work but who receive interest from bonds etc.

Nothing even remotely like no return on capital, most
obviously with capital gains on the house you own.

The second one is talking about something different,
getting into debt with money lenders etc.

Its now ironic that in the UK unearned income is taxed less heavily!

Nope, there are good reasons for that approach.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/16 11:05, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/09/2016 10:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see, so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

Who knows. Obviously you can provide a link to the manifesto he was
'elected on' can't you?

I respect your quite reasonable question rather than Rod's pathetic
denial there wasn't a manifesto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ialist_Program
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP

Regarding living off unearned income.
Point 11:
"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery."

That is nothing even remotely like your **** right at the tope.

The first one is talking about those who dont
work but who receive interest from bonds etc.

Nothing even remotely like no return on capital, most
obviously with capital gains on the house you own.

And isnt saying that people who do work shouldnt be
paid any interest on what money they have in banks either.

The second one is talking about something different,
getting into debt with money lenders etc.

Its now ironic that in the UK unearned income is taxed less heavily!

Nope, there are good reasons for that approach.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 10 September 2016 10:28:37 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 19:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 2:44 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 12:32, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/16 10:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Sep-16 10:12 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
I see the state education system has let you down again. and you
are
unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being half
way
down, or being halfway down and moving further...
....

Did that actually make sense to you when you wrote it?


yes, and it still does.

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

I think it has let many down.

It does seem strange when someone points out an undeniable fact,
that
can only be a result of the education system.

Are you suggesting the education system should teach people to
ignore
simple facts involving police and armed forces?

I see the sate education system has let you down again....

No, I am suggest8ing nothing of te kind.

I am suggesting that anyone who cannot understand the following :

"you are unable to distinguish between the bottom of the hole, being
half way down, or being halfway down and moving further..."

Has an inadequate grasp of English, due to the state education system
having abandoned English grammar and comprehension as a subject
deemed
worth studying.

You misunderstand. I wasn't questioning whether that was an
intelligible
composition of words. I was asking whether it made sense to you to
write
that as a response to my post. I was simply pointing out that Britain,
and many other countries, have been carrying out inter-service
cooperation exercises for decades without anybody claiming we were
coming under martial law. Your response seems to be completely
unrelated
to that.


thats because you are stupid, or deliberetaly trolling

I pointed out that 'descending into' something is not the same as being
there already.

I agree the article mentioned the cooperation of the police and armed
forces and called it martial law.

You have to be pretty thick not to notice that the police do work with
the armed forces from time to time.

If you call any working between police and the armed forces martial law,
then the UK has been subject to martial law for a long time.

The troll here is the one seeming to think that the police and armed
forces never work together.

When the armed forces are patrolling the streets,

That isnt happening in Germany currently, bigot boy.

it is de facto martial law.

Wrong, as always.

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can fully understand why people supported Hitler. And why people
support Corbyn.

And why Lefty****s are ****s.

I don't excuse it though.

I thank you and Fredxxx for your responses. I could talk about this
sort of stuff all day, but I don't think usenet is a great way to deal
with it.

You've clearly both studied more than me, yet I still maintain that
/for most people/, Hitler's success is something of a mystery.

I've pointed out a couple of the factors that Hitler used very
effectively to rouse people up. He was a very effective orator. He also
used violence to bash the communists.

I think the Nazis invented targeted political leafletting,

No they didnt. Lots of that happened in Britain long
before he was even born, usually call pamphletering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphl...let_in_England

making contradictory promises (high food prices to farmers/low food prices
to everyone else) to various sections of the community.

I also get the impression that the political atmosphere in general was
fairly violent, and that's why people did not find it particularly
surprising or alienating.

The very mention of the name is too loaded for people to not
believe that he tricked his way into power. Yet it is clear that
he did not.

In a way, he did. He certainly *politicked* his way in, and once he'd
been appointed as Chancellor used that position to cement his power.

He seems to have been the master of opportunity.

I think it's worth mentioning the paralysis induced by Germany's
system of proportional representation as a major factor. There was
one NSDAP founding member (whose name I can't remember) who, when
asked what they stand for, simply said 'the opposite of what there is
today'. I think many people feel that right now, especially in the US.

Well, the Nazis became the largest party but never had an absolute
majority of the vote. You also have to remember that, although Germany
had this wonderful written constitution, those responsible for guarding
it (the army, police, judiciary) all hated it. Hence Hitler only
getting 9 months for armed insurrection - treason, in fact.

Another unfortunate factor - the Weimar Republic did not purge the
judiciary.

The hyperinflation of 1923 has been mentioned, but this was got under
control when required (I think it was allowed to run away in order to
obfuscate the value of the currency at a time when they were paying
reparations), and I'd be surprised if it was still a motivating
political factor ten years later. The Great Depression, OTOH,
certainly was.

It was got under control, but it ruined the middle classes and made
them fodder for Hitler.

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 9 September 2016 14:50:32 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

That is quite easy. The Great Depression started in 1929 and continued
for most countries until the late 30's.

There were no state benefits payable to anyone who was out of work. We
have also conveniently forgotten who invented and ran the banking
system. They were vilified in much the same way bankers are today for
the 2007/8 bank bailouts. People lost their life saving and the blame
was firmly placed on bankers at that time. In those days bankers were
not a protected characteristic.

Hitler had various socialist policies. One of which was a Christian
tradition that interest should not be charged, and that there should be
no return on capital; where only labours were remunerated. If Corbyn
adopted those policies, who knows!

On top of that Hitler spent his way out any economic disaster, the
opposite of austerity and used the resource to arm Germany.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist, as
least as far as native Germans were concerned.

He was very much a socialist and was voted in on that basis.

I always understood the main reason he was voted in

He never was voted in as Chancellor.

is he was the only one giving Germany a hope of being great, when
it was in such poverty that many had nothing like enough to eat.

Germany was never like that.

AIUI he made no secret of his more lunatic views,

And many who did vote for his party didnt even know about them.

but did have some smart insights in some respects,
and thus people bought into his vision as one of hope.

And he did deliver on that hope, reviving the economy
quite dramatically using absolutely classic Keynesian
deficit spending, same as FDR did in the US.

The problem for Germany was that there was no way to
pay for that, the massive military machine had to be used.

Of course they had little clue what would really happen & how.

Just like no one else did as WW2 started.

On 10/09/2016 22:17, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Friday, 9 September 2016 14:50:32 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

That is quite easy. The Great Depression started in 1929 and continued
for most countries until the late 30's.

There were no state benefits payable to anyone who was out of work. We
have also conveniently forgotten who invented and ran the banking
system. They were vilified in much the same way bankers are today for
the 2007/8 bank bailouts. People lost their life saving and the blame
was firmly placed on bankers at that time. In those days bankers were
not a protected characteristic.

Hitler had various socialist policies. One of which was a Christian
tradition that interest should not be charged, and that there should be
no return on capital; where only labours were remunerated. If Corbyn
adopted those policies, who knows!

On top of that Hitler spent his way out any economic disaster, the
opposite of austerity and used the resource to arm Germany.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist, as
least as far as native Germans were concerned.

He was very much a socialist and was voted in on that basis.

I always understood the main reason he was voted in

He never was voted in as Chancellor.

He was appointed by Hindenberg who was President of Germany at the time.

is he was the only one giving Germany a hope of being great, when
it was in such poverty that many had nothing like enough to eat.

Germany was never like that.

The 1920s saw hyperinflation and starvation.

On 10/09/2016 21:37, Rod Speed wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/16 11:05, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/09/2016 10:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see, so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

Who knows. Obviously you can provide a link to the manifesto he was
'elected on' can't you?

I respect your quite reasonable question rather than Rod's pathetic
denial there wasn't a manifesto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ialist_Program
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP

Regarding living off unearned income.
Point 11:
"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery."

That is nothing even remotely like your **** right at the tope.

The first one is talking about those who dont
work but who receive interest from bonds etc.

Nothing even remotely like no return on capital, most
obviously with capital gains on the house you own.

And isnt saying that people who do work shouldnt be
paid any interest on what money they have in banks either.

Yes he is. You've already proven you can't/won't read the manifesto.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Friday, 9 September 2016 14:50:32 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

That is quite easy. The Great Depression started in 1929 and continued
for most countries until the late 30's.

There were no state benefits payable to anyone who was out of work. We
have also conveniently forgotten who invented and ran the banking
system. They were vilified in much the same way bankers are today for
the 2007/8 bank bailouts. People lost their life saving and the blame
was firmly placed on bankers at that time. In those days bankers were
not a protected characteristic.

Hitler had various socialist policies. One of which was a Christian
tradition that interest should not be charged, and that there should be
no return on capital; where only labours were remunerated. If Corbyn
adopted those policies, who knows!

On top of that Hitler spent his way out any economic disaster, the
opposite of austerity and used the resource to arm Germany.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist, as
least as far as native Germans were concerned.

He was very much a socialist and was voted in on that basis.

I always understood the main reason he was voted in is he was the only one
giving Germany a hope of being great, when it was in such poverty that many
had nothing like enough to eat. AIUI he made no secret of his more lunatic
views, but did have some smart insights in some respects, and thus people
bought into his vision as one of hope. Of course they had little clue
what would really happen & how.

Well, he wrote it all down in Mein Kampf, so plenty of people had no
excuse.


He never said in Mein Kampf that he was going to occupy most of Europe or
kill all the Jews he could either.

On 10/09/2016 11:55, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Neither. I read it before were even born and know you lied thru your
****ing teeth.

You may well have done, but dementia has since set in.

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see,

Nope, you never do.

Are you now saying that you can never be elected to government if the
electoral means is proportional representation?

so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

He was never elected chancellor. He was APPOINTED chancellor by
Hindenburg.

Your comment doesn't deny that Hitler was associated with a manifesto.
We already know he was appointed Chancellor.

On 10/09/16 22:40, Fredxxx wrote:


Yes he is. You've already proven you can't/won't read the manifesto.

Sheesh

that manifesto is 1920.

The party wasn't even called the Nazi party.

It reads like a Corbyn manifesto.

I am surprised a copy still exists.




--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2016 22:17, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Friday, 9 September 2016 14:50:32 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

That is quite easy. The Great Depression started in 1929 and continued
for most countries until the late 30's.

There were no state benefits payable to anyone who was out of work. We
have also conveniently forgotten who invented and ran the banking
system. They were vilified in much the same way bankers are today for
the 2007/8 bank bailouts. People lost their life saving and the blame
was firmly placed on bankers at that time. In those days bankers were
not a protected characteristic.

Hitler had various socialist policies. One of which was a Christian
tradition that interest should not be charged, and that there should be
no return on capital; where only labours were remunerated. If Corbyn
adopted those policies, who knows!

On top of that Hitler spent his way out any economic disaster, the
opposite of austerity and used the resource to arm Germany.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist, as
least as far as native Germans were concerned.

He was very much a socialist and was voted in on that basis.

I always understood the main reason he was voted in

He never was voted in as Chancellor.

He was appointed by Hindenberg who was President of Germany at the time.

So he clearly wasnt voted in as Chancellor.

is he was the only one giving Germany a hope of being great, when
it was in such poverty that many had nothing like enough to eat.

Germany was never like that.

The 1920s saw hyperinflation

Yes.

and starvation.

Nope.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2016 21:37, Rod Speed wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/16 11:05, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/09/2016 10:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not
be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where
only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see, so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

Who knows. Obviously you can provide a link to the manifesto he was
'elected on' can't you?

I respect your quite reasonable question rather than Rod's pathetic
denial there wasn't a manifesto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ialist_Program
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP

Regarding living off unearned income.
Point 11:
"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery."

That is nothing even remotely like your **** right at the tope.

The first one is talking about those who dont
work but who receive interest from bonds etc.

Nothing even remotely like no return on capital, most
obviously with capital gains on the house you own.

And isnt saying that people who do work shouldnt be
paid any interest on what money they have in banks either.

Yes he is.

Hitler didnt write that. And he never abolished interest
on bank deposits once he became Chancellor anyway.

He didnt even ban make it illegal to not work either,
whatever that steaming turd of a manifesto might or
might not have had in it more than a decade before
he ever got to decide how anything got done.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/2016 11:55, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote

One of which was a Christian tradition that interest should not be
charged, and that there should be no return on capital; where only
labours were remunerated.

Hitler never ever had any such policy.

I suggest you start reading the National Socialist German Workers'
Party manifesto

No point, it never said anything like that.

Are you illiterate, or just in denial?

Neither. I read it before were even born and know you lied thru your
****ing teeth.

Hitler was elected on.

Wrong, again.

I see,

Nope, you never do.

Are you now saying that you can never be elected to government if the
electoral means is proportional representation?

Nope, that that wasn’t the manifesto that the
NSDAP was elected to the Reichstag on in the
elections on July and November 1932.

so Hitler wasn't associated with a manifesto?

He was never elected chancellor. He was APPOINTED chancellor by
Hindenburg.

Your comment doesn't deny that Hitler was associated with a manifesto.

Hitler wasn’t even the leader of the party when that manifesto
was written and the wording of it makes it abundantly clear that
it wasn’t even a manifesto at all, proposing what the party would
do if it was the govt.

We already know he was appointed Chancellor.

You stupidly ran the lie that he was VOTED IN.
He wasn’t, he was APPOINTED by Hindenburg.
And no manifesto was involved in that either.

And Hitler never ever had any policy that deposits
in banks would never be paid any interest either. Let
alone that other mindless silly **** of yours at the top.

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself that
all the elected party members did no labour
in the Reichstag and were paid anyway.

On Saturday, 10 September 2016 22:46:51 UTC+1, BillD wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Friday, 9 September 2016 14:50:32 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

That is quite easy. The Great Depression started in 1929 and continued
for most countries until the late 30's.

There were no state benefits payable to anyone who was out of work. We
have also conveniently forgotten who invented and ran the banking
system. They were vilified in much the same way bankers are today for
the 2007/8 bank bailouts. People lost their life saving and the blame
was firmly placed on bankers at that time. In those days bankers were
not a protected characteristic.

Hitler had various socialist policies. One of which was a Christian
tradition that interest should not be charged, and that there should be
no return on capital; where only labours were remunerated. If Corbyn
adopted those policies, who knows!

On top of that Hitler spent his way out any economic disaster, the
opposite of austerity and used the resource to arm Germany.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist, as
least as far as native Germans were concerned.

He was very much a socialist and was voted in on that basis.

I always understood the main reason he was voted in is he was the only one
giving Germany a hope of being great, when it was in such poverty that many
had nothing like enough to eat. AIUI he made no secret of his more lunatic
views, but did have some smart insights in some respects, and thus people
bought into his vision as one of hope. Of course they had little clue
what would really happen & how.

Well, he wrote it all down in Mein Kampf, so plenty of people had no
excuse.


He never said in Mein Kampf that he was going to occupy most of Europe or
kill all the Jews he could either.

Unlike in the Koran.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 10 September 2016 22:46:51 UTC+1, BillD wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Friday, 9 September 2016 14:50:32 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 09/09/2016 13:59, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

I think one of the hardest things in history is to try to understand
what people thought of Hitler in the 30's.

That is quite easy. The Great Depression started in 1929 and
continued
for most countries until the late 30's.

There were no state benefits payable to anyone who was out of work.
We
have also conveniently forgotten who invented and ran the banking
system. They were vilified in much the same way bankers are today for
the 2007/8 bank bailouts. People lost their life saving and the blame
was firmly placed on bankers at that time. In those days bankers were
not a protected characteristic.

Hitler had various socialist policies. One of which was a Christian
tradition that interest should not be charged, and that there should
be
no return on capital; where only labours were remunerated. If Corbyn
adopted those policies, who knows!

On top of that Hitler spent his way out any economic disaster, the
opposite of austerity and used the resource to arm Germany.

I'm sure he considered himself to be something of a socialist, as
least as far as native Germans were concerned.

He was very much a socialist and was voted in on that basis.

I always understood the main reason he was voted in is he was the only
one
giving Germany a hope of being great, when it was in such poverty that
many
had nothing like enough to eat. AIUI he made no secret of his more
lunatic
views, but did have some smart insights in some respects, and thus
people
bought into his vision as one of hope. Of course they had little clue
what would really happen & how.

Well, he wrote it all down in Mein Kampf, so plenty of people had no
excuse.


He never said in Mein Kampf that he was going to occupy most of Europe or
kill all the Jews he could either.

Unlike in the Koran.

The Koran never says anything even remotely like that, liar.

On 10-Sep-16 8:46 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/09/2016 19:12, harry wrote:


When the armed forces are patrolling the streets, it is de facto
martial law.



err no.
when military law supersedes civil and criminal law then its martial law.
Northern Ireland was not under martial law when the troops were patrolling.

Nor is France today.

--
--

Colin Bignell